BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Middle Level Bill

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Middle Level Bill, which originated in this House in the previous Session on 24 January 2017, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Object.
Bill to be considered on Tuesday 17 October at Four o’clock.

City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Bill

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Mental Health Workforce

Stephen McPartland: What recent steps he has taken to increase the size of the mental health workforce.

Jeremy Hunt: Today is World Mental Health Day and the whole House will want to congratulate Time2Change on its 10th anniversary and the remarkable change in attitudes towards mental illness that it has helped to bring about. Our mental health workforce has increased by 30,000 since 2010 and another 21,000 posts are planned. [Official Report, 16 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 4MC.]

Stephen McPartland: On World Mental Health Day, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work he has done, especially for children. We have had 42% more children receiving care for eating disorders and over 21,000 more children have received access to mental health provision. What targets does the Secretary of State have to help to improve such provision?

Jeremy Hunt: Our plans envisage treating another 70,000 children every year by 2020-21, but that is still not enough. It will take us from one in four children needing help to one in three. That is why we are publishing a Green Paper on child and adolescent mental health.

Kevan Jones: One of the staffing shortages is actually in children and young people’s services. In County Durham in my constituency,  the waiting time for autism diagnosis is two years. I have raised this with the mental health trust and NHS England, but the problem seems to be with the clinical commissioning group. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the extra money that he has pledged to put into the service actually gets to the service?

Jeremy Hunt: I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking out about mental health, like so many colleagues in this House, which makes a massive difference to the Time2Change campaign. It is unacceptable for someone to be waiting that long, and I do not want to stand here and defend it. I will certainly look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but the fact is that many Members will know of similar cases. The money is starting to get through to the frontline. It is not just money, though; it is also capacity, and having trained mental health therapists—nurses; psychiatrists—and that is why we are boosting their training, too.

Sarah Wollaston: As someone who is married to an NHS psychiatrist, may I start by paying tribute to all those volunteers, carers and professionals working in mental health on World Mental Health Day? Has the Secretary of State seen today’s briefing by the Children’s Commissioner, highlighting the vital importance of prevention and early intervention? Will he set out what steps he is taking to support a growing workforce—volunteers and professionals—working in prevention and early intervention?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware of the report that she talks about. We know that half of mental health conditions become established before the age of 14, which is why early intervention is so important. In July, I announced an expansion in the mental health workforce—another 21,000 posts. A number of those will be in children’s mental health, to address the issues she raises.

Tim Farron: The Secretary of State may know that because of a reduction in the number of mental health clinicians in Cumbria, the Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has now chosen to end consultant psychiatric call-out care from 8 pm to 9 am. It would have started last week, but it is going to start in the next two or three weeks. That means, as I am sure he is aware, that it will not be possible to section people under the Mental Health Acts between those hours unless they are within an NHS facility. People in police stations, people in care homes and people at A&E departments will not be—

John Bercow: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an application for an Adjournment debate, he can do that on a subsequent occasion. I think we have got the gravamen of his question.

Tim Farron: The question is: does the Secretary of State agree that that is not an appropriate use of resources, and will he provide the resources that are needed?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. I will not go into it in detail now, but I will certainly look into it closely and get back to him, if I may. Obviously it is very important.

Mims Davies: On World Mental Health Day, may I also welcome the progress the Government have made? We are doing all that we can to make changes. However, too many patients in my constituency, particularly younger patients, have to travel out of Eastleigh for the treatment they need, especially given the challenges facing Southern Health. Will the Secretary of State outline what he will be doing to right this wrong?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issues around Southern Health, which will have directly affected a number of her constituents. That organisation is being turned around. However, she is also right to say that too many people are travelling out of area for their treatment. We have record numbers of children’s beds commissioned, but in the end this is about the capacity of the system of trained psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists, which was why we announced the extra 21,000 posts.

Barbara Keeley: On World Mental Health Day, may I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for wearing yellow for #HelloYellow on behalf of our team?
The Secretary of State’s claim that thousands of extra mental health staff will be appointed by 2021 is fanciful unless he tells us how they will be funded. Today, the Care Quality Commission reports that mental health services are struggling to staff wards safely. We have also learned recently that two out of five mental health staff have been abused or attacked by patients in the past year. Most blame staff shortages for that violence. Rather than telling us about recruiting for 2021, what is the Secretary of State going to do today to protect staff from violence? [Official Report, 16 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 4MC.]

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the hon. Lady what has happened in mental health. Some 30,000 more people are working in mental health today than when her Government left office—a 5.8% increase in clinical staff. On top of that —she asked about money—we have committed an extra £1 billion a year by 2021 so that we can employ even more people. We are the first Government to admit that where we are now is not good enough. We want to be the best in the world; that is why we are investing to deliver that.

Fiona Bruce: Parental conflict is recognised as a key cause of children’s mental health problems. What is the Department doing to address that, and will Ministers be willing to meet a group of colleagues who supported the “Manifesto to Strengthen Families”? Its policy proposals seek to discuss how strengthening families can address children’s mental health problems.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Children who come from troubled or chaotic family backgrounds are far more likely to have mental health issues. I am more than happy to meet her and to feed her thoughts into our mental health Green Paper.

Nursing

Rachel Maclean: What steps he is taking to broaden routes into nursing.

Jeremy Hunt: Developing new routes into nursing is a priority for my Department, which was why last week I announced plans to train 12,500 new nursing associates through the apprentice route in the next two years and to increase the number of nurses we train by 25%—the biggest increase in the history of the NHS.

Rachel Maclean: I welcome the fact that there are currently record numbers of nurses working in the NHS, but what is the Secretary of State doing to provide assurances to hospitals, such as the Alex in my constituency, that have faced issues with recruitment and retention? I very much welcome the new routes into nursing, including degree apprenticeships. What further actions does he propose to take?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Alex is going through a difficult period and I know that as the local MP she is giving it a lot of support. The fact is that in 2014 we turned down 37,000 applicants to nurse degree courses. That is why we think that we need to do much, much better in training a number of people who would make brilliant nurses. That was why we announced the big increase last week, which will help the Alex and many other hospitals.

Ben Bradshaw: University admissions departments have reported an 8% fall in the number of people accepted on to nursing courses this autumn, so the situation is getting worse, not better as the Secretary of State claims. What contingency does he have in place, in the event that we crash out of the European Union, to address a further haemorrhaging of European Union staff from the NHS, and when will he review his disastrous decision to abolish nurse bursaries, which has had such a negative impact?

Jeremy Hunt: Let us be clear: we took the difficult decision on nurse bursaries precisely so that we could have the biggest expansion in nurse training places we have ever had. When we had the higher education reforms in 2011, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party opposed, we also saw a drop in initial applications, but then we saw them soaring to record levels. That is what we want to happen with nurses, because we need more nurses for the Royal Devon and Exeter, and all the hospitals that serve our constituents.

Maria Caulfield: I welcome the apprenticeship route and the associate nurse route into nursing because living on a bursary of £400 a month is no fun, believe me. However, will the Secretary of State look at nurse training so that when nurses qualify they are able to take on courses such as venepuncture and cannulation as soon as possible? Many student nurses and newly qualified nurses are frustrated that they cannot be used in those roles.

Jeremy Hunt: I will certainly look into that. Of course, my hon. Friend understands this issue better than many in this House. The really exciting change is that it will now be possible for healthcare assistants who could make fantastic nurses to progress to being nurses without needing to take out student loans because they will be able to carry on earning while they learn. That will open up big opportunities for many people.

Justin Madders: Although we support moves to broaden access to nursing, these measures are effectively an admission that the scrapping of bursaries has been a disaster, but whatever recruitment strategies there are, the Government need to improve retention. The Royal College of Nursing recently reported that half of nurses surveyed said that
“staff shortages are compromising…care”.
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that nurses can do their jobs properly right now?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to bring that up. One thing we can do a lot better is to improve the opportunities for flexible working. We have announced that we will be making new flexible working arrangements available to all NHS staff during this Parliament. We are also expanding programmes to encourage people who may have left the profession to come back into nursing.

Philippa Whitford: I think everyone would welcome an expansion of nurse training places, but the Council of Deans of Health stated in June that no new extra places had been funded either in universities or, crucially, in hospitals, where 50% of the course is carried out. Will the Secretary of State clarify when that funding will be made available?

Jeremy Hunt: Next year.

Philippa Whitford: Obviously we know that it takes quite some time to train a nurse, and one in 10 posts in England is vacant—that is twice the rate we face in Scotland. We also know that there is a 51% increase in nurses leaving the profession, a 96% drop in those coming from the European Union, and a limit on the use of agency staff, so where does the Secretary of State expect NHS England to find the 40,000 nurses it needs right now?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me just remind the hon. Lady that there are 11,300 more nurses on our wards than there were just four years ago, so we are increasing the number of nurses in the NHS. She mentions what is happening in Scotland. I gently remind her that nearly double the proportion of patients are waiting too long for their operations in Scotland as in England.

Richard Graham: The Secretary of State will know that the University of Gloucestershire recently introduced courses for both the higher apprenticeships scheme as a pilot project and for nursing degrees. These have been incredibly popular in my constituency and around the county of Gloucestershire. Does he support our bid to have a university technical college that will provide pathways for people into health and care, working closely with all NHS organisations?

Jeremy Hunt: I support all universities that are trying to move into offering more courses that can help me to ensure that we have enough staff for the NHS. I am sure that the University of Gloucestershire’s bid will be powerful, but I am aware that other hon. Members are supporting bids from their own constituency—including, I have to say, that of the University of Surrey, which puts me in a somewhat difficult position.

Myopic Choroidal Neovascularisation: Eylea

Ian Austin: What his policy is on making Eylea available as a treatment for myopic choroidal neovascularisation.

Steve Brine: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance on the use of Eylea for the treatment of myopic CNV. NICE has published draft guidance for appeal that recommends use of the drug subject to a patient access scheme that makes it available to the NHS at a discounted price. NICE expects to publish final guidance this November.

Ian Austin: NICE needs to get a move on, because these drugs have been available to patients in Scotland and Wales, but patients in England will be going blind in the meantime.
Some people are told that their eyesight is too good to be treated, but by the time it has declined, they are told that nothing can be done to help. Will the Secretary of State meet my constituent, Elaine Shaw, who has been campaigning on the issue, the Macular Society and the Royal National Institute of Blind People so that we can discuss how to prevent people from facing an increased and unacceptable risk of preventable sight loss?

Steve Brine: Obviously I would be deeply concerned if patients were losing their sight due to treatment not happening in a timely way. Dudley clinical commissioning group tells me that it has already made funding available for Eylea following consideration of the NICE evidence summary issued in June 2016. This is the first drug that we have appraised through the new fast-track process for treatments that demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness. Patients will have routine access to Eylea from 1 December should the guidance remain unchanged. Of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituent.

Transvaginal Mesh Implants

Paul Masterton: What discussions he has had with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on transvaginal mesh implants.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My colleague, Lord O’Shaughnessy, met the MHRA on 27 September to discuss this very important issue. The Department will have further discussions with NHS England on the support given to patients who have suffered due to this procedure and has asked the regulator to work with the clinical community to assess the associated risks and whether alternative treatments offer better outcomes for patients.

Paul Masterton: Thousands of women across the country, including my constituent Elaine Holmes, the co-founder of the Scottish Mesh Survivors group, have to live with the catastrophic consequences of transvaginal mesh implants. With health regulators across the globe now waking up to the scandal and issuing alerts or deregistering mesh devices, will Ministers join me in urging the MHRA immediately to reclassify this damaging procedure as high risk?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I fully sympathise with anyone who has suffered complications as a result of these devices, but we do not currently have enough evidence to warrant our asking the MHRA to reclassify these procedures, and this is a view shared by other regulators across the world. I can advise him, however, that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence strongly recommends that mesh implants not be routinely offered for the first surgical intervention on prolapse. That guidance is being updated—publication is due at the start of the new year—and will include an overarching document that looks in depth at the devices and the conditions surrounding the need for them, as well as the treatment of complications, to support better health outcomes.

Karin Smyth: A constituent came to my surgery to explain how this has impacted on her life. It is truly harrowing. I understand that NHS England has set up 17 regional teams to look into this. I want to be able to assure my constituent that the voice of women and how this is impacting them on will be considered. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond so that we might understand what the future holds.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am absolutely aware that many women experience substantial side effects and complications following this procedure. Equally, however, many women also experience considerable relief from symptoms. We need a good review of the evidence to make sure that we adopt this procedure only when it fully suits women and that women understand the risks associated with the procedure. But I fully sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituent.

Sharon Hodgson: It is deeply worrying, though, that this procedure was introduced with so little evidence to support it. I think we all have to agree it has led to unacceptable complication rates for certain products. Will the Minister heed the words of Professor Heneghan and hold a public inquiry into the numbers of women adversely affected and why the safety of so many women was disregarded?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I say again that many women have received relief from their symptoms following this procedure, but we need more evidence before we can properly review it, so it is important that we allow NICE to undertake its work so that we can take a clear view. Any procedure comes with risk—no surgery is without it—but obviously the more evidence we can gather, the better we can advise women of those risks.

Five Year Forward View for Mental Health

Rebecca Pow: What plans he has for the implementation of the NHS’s five year forward view for mental health.

Anna Soubry: What plans he has for the implementation of the NHS’s Five Year Forward View for Mental Health.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We are making good progress on the implementation of the five year forward view for mental health. We have published a workforce plan and invested more money than ever before, and we are providing care to 120,000 more people this year compared with 2013.

Rebecca Pow: The charity Mind recently produced a report called “Feel better outside, feel better inside”, which advocated the benefits of eco-therapy—using activities such as gardening, farming and exercise. The National Garden Scheme has also produced a publication on this. Is the treatment being utilised within the NHS?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. Yes, I can give her that assurance. It is welcome that local authorities and clinical commissioning groups are considering innovative approaches concentrating on wellbeing, as well as acute services, and eco-therapy is part of that agenda.

Anna Soubry: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House will send their condolences to the family and friends of Rebecca Nevin, a constituent of mine who died aged 32 after many years of poor mental health and an addiction to alcohol. Her father, Stephen, like many parents of adult sufferers of poor mental health, felt largely excluded by health professionals. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need health systems and workers who maintain patient confidentiality while recognising and acting on the genuine concerns of parents of adults?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am sure that we are all very sorry to hear of the death of my right hon. Friend’s constituent, and we send our condolences to her family. It is extremely difficult to balance patients’ right to confidentiality with the needs and requests of their families, and we will study any recommendations that emerge from the coroner’s investigation.

Luciana Berger: I heard what the Secretary of State said about funding earlier, and what the Minister said a moment before. However, I sent freedom of information requests to every CCG in the country, and found for the second successive year that more than half of them are not increasing the proportion of their budgets that they spend on mental health. That flies in the face of a commitment made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, and it flies in the face of the spirit of the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. On World Mental Health Day, will the Minister, along with the Secretary of State, commit herself to ensuring that we ring-fence the money that they say is available for mental health?

Jackie Doyle-Price: On World Mental Health Day, I can confirm that we are spending £574 million more on mental health this year. It remains our principle that decisions should be made locally by CCGs, but we have very clear expectations of them, and they will be held to account via inspections.

Norman Lamb: The ‘Five Year Forward View’ suggested that the Government accepted the case for comprehensive maximum waiting time standards in mental health to match those in physical  health. Given that children throughout the country are routinely waiting for months to start their treatment, may I ask what progress the Government are making with the introduction of a maximum waiting time standard for children’s mental health?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an excellent point. Our Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health will address exactly those issues. We have made clear that we will tackle mental health through early intervention, and early intervention for children and young people is central to that.

NHS Staffing Levels

Thelma Walker: What recent assessment he has made of trends in staffing levels in the NHS.

Philip Dunne: Not only has the number of nurses on our wards increased by more than 11,000 since May 2010, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, but the NHS has nearly 11,300 more doctors, over 2,700 more paramedics, over 26,000 more supporters for clinical staff, and 5,700 fewer administrators. However, we recognise the pressures on staff from increasing demand. That is why last year my right hon. Friend announced a 25% increase in the number of doctors in training, and why last week he announced a 25% record increase in the number of nursing training places.

Thelma Walker: Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, is currently facing plans for a downgrading that would result in the loss of 500 hard-working professionals. Is it too much to ask for the Minister, or the Secretary of State, to visit the hospital, as I have requested, before those hard-working trained professionals are lost, and can he assure me—and my constituents—that those cuts, and the pressures on nearby hospitals, will not jeopardise the safety of patients?

John Bercow: Order. There is a growing tendency for colleagues to ask two questions rather than one, which is not fair on other colleagues who are trying to get in. Forgive me, but the questions are too long, and frequently the answers are as well.

Philip Dunne: I will try to keep this answer short, Mr Speaker.
As the hon. Lady will know, the local joint health overview and scrutiny committee has referred those proposals to the Secretary of State, and it would not be appropriate for me to visit the hospital while the referral is in progress.

Julie Cooper: On the subject of vital NHS staff, will the Minister join me in congratulating the thousands of community pharmacists on their daily commitment and professionalism? Will he confirm, once and for all, that he has no intention of downgrading their role and putting patients at risk? Surely he agrees that the Prime Minister would have been well advised to seek a cough remedy from a qualified community pharmacist rather than relying on an unqualified Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Philip Dunne: As the hon. Lady will know, we have inserted payment for extra activity into the contract for community pharmacists because we want more activities to take place in community pharmacies. For example, many flu vaccinations throughout the country are now being carried out by pharmacists.

Martin Vickers: I thank the Minister for the recent meeting that he had with me and other colleagues about Grimsby Hospital, which is in special measures. It was clear from a recent meeting I had with the chief executive that staff vacancies are one of the biggest problems preventing the hospital from getting out of special measures. What additional support can the Department offer in order to get the hospital back on track?

Philip Dunne: I was pleased to welcome my hon. Friend to a meeting a few days ago to discuss the situation, together with his Opposition constituency neighbours. One of the things that we will be looking at in the coming weeks is the allocation of the new doctor training places. As part of the criteria, we will be looking to ensure that some of those places are allocated to areas where it is difficult to recruit, such as rural and coastal areas.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister has visited Kettering General Hospital and knows the wonderful work that the doctors and nurses there do. The problem that the hospital faces, however, is that too few of the doctors and nurses are full-time permanent members of staff, and too many locums are being hired, at great expense to the hospital budget. What is my hon. Friend’s advice for Kettering hospital on tackling the issue?

Philip Dunne: When I visited Kettering General Hospital we discussed excessive agency staff costs. One of the measures announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a drive to invest more in both regional and local bank agencies within the NHS so that we can reduce the reliance on more expensive agency staff.

End-of-Life Care

Catherine McKinnell: What steps his Department is taking to improve end-of-life care.

Jackie Doyle-Price: By 2020 we want significantly to improve patient choice in end-of-life care. The Government’s end-of-life care commitment sets out exactly what everyone should expect. In September we published a report on the good progress that we have made over the first year.

Catherine McKinnell: The End of Life Care Coalition has said that it remains deeply concerned about the enduring gap in resources for community-based health and social care services. Meanwhile, Together for Short Lives continues to highlight the unacceptable postcode lottery faced by 40,000 children with life-limiting conditions. What is the Minister doing to ensure that all clinical commissioning groups and sustainability and transformation partnerships will meet the Government’s requirements in full for both children and adults by 2020?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I know that she, through her role on the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care, will continue to hold me to account on these commitments. We did look at the work undertaken by Together for Short Lives to improve end-of-life care for children, which does require special attention—she is quite right to raise that. NHS England recently co-hosted a policy summit with Together for Short Lives, and I will be meeting it next week to discuss that further. We are also engaging local sustainability and transformation partnerships to support planning for end-of-life care, and helping all trusts to develop and improve their services. This work is ongoing, but it remains a key priority.

Will Quince: When it comes to baby loss, the end of life can often be sudden and unexpected. In this Baby Loss Awareness Week, will the Minister join me in welcoming the launch of the national bereavement care pathway, and pay tribute to Sands, baby loss organisations and charities, the APPG and the former Care Quality Minister, Ben Gummer, who did so much to make it happen?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am of course happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those organisations and thank him for all the work that he has done. The 11 pilots launched only last month are very much down to his work and that of hon. Members across the House, who have done so much over the past year to raise awareness of the issue.

Tony Lloyd: Many people would prefer to die at home, but that is actually very difficult to achieve, not only because of the lack of support for Macmillan nurses, for example, but because, frankly, of the reluctance of the authorities to effect a speedy transition to a home base. What can the Government now do to ensure that dying at home is a real option?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: many people would elect to die at home, if the opportunity were available. We need to ensure provision to allow people to do that, if that is their choice, because we should be supporting people to honour their choices at the end of their lives, and it enables us to treat more people in hospitals and hospices.

Maggie Throup: Hospices, such as Treetops Hospice Care in my constituency, provide outstanding end-of-life care. Although these services benefit from generous charitable donations that enable them to operate on a day-to-day basis, what more can the Government do to help support hospices when capital investment is needed to improve the current setting of new build?

Jackie Doyle-Price: One of the strengths of our hospice movement is that it relies heavily on charitable donations, which shows that people are generous and that they want to support good, locally focused care. However, CCGs should look at where they can support hospices with their care costs, and we will certainly consider including that in the end-of-life care programme.

Public Sector Pay Cap: NHS Staffing Levels

Chris Matheson: What assessment he has made of the effect of the public sector pay cap on staffing levels in the NHS.

Marsha de Cordova: What assessment he has made of the effect of the public sector pay cap on staffing levels in the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: NHS staff do a fantastic job in tough circumstances, and pay restraint has been challenging for many of them. However, given the financial pressures, it is also true that the NHS would not have been able to recruit an additional 30,000 staff since May 2010 without the cap.

Chris Matheson: The NHS is short of 3,500 midwives and 40,000 nurses. What proportion of those numbers does the Secretary of State put down to the public sector pay cap?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said in my previous answer, without pay restraint we would not have 11,300 more doctors in the NHS and 11,300 more nurses on our wards. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recognise that it was not sustainable to carry on with the 1% rise going forward, which is why we have been given the leeway to have more flexible negotiations next year.

Marsha de Cordova: Hospital wards and GP surgeries are chronically understaffed, and the knock-on effect is that waiting lists are spiralling out of control. Is it not in the best interests of patients to scrap the pay cap so that the NHS can be run with the relevant number of staff in place?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome what I think is my first question from the hon. Lady, and I can give her some good news: the pay cap has been scrapped.

Helen Whately: In the work that I have done in hospitals, staff have told me that they are most unhappy about too much reliance on temporary staff, rota gaps and not feeling valued, as opposed to issues around pay. The latter—not feeling valued—often goes hand in hand with poor management practices. What is my right hon. Friend doing about those causes of staff unhappiness?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience of working in the NHS, is absolutely right. The new Care Quality Commission inspection regime is designed precisely to identify good, strong leadership, because that has the best impact on staff and, through that, the best impact on patients.

Drug Treatment Services

Jeff Smith: What assessment he has made of the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the level of funding for drug treatment services.

Steve Brine: We thank the ACMD for its report, and we take its advice seriously. Discussions will happen across Government, and we will respond fully in due course in the usual way.

Jeff Smith: The ACMD says:
“England had built a world class drug treatment system… This system is now being dismantled due to reductions in resources.”
More than 100 local authorities have had to reduce spending on addiction services this year as a result of Government cuts. Will that reduction in addiction treatment budgets not just cost the NHS more in the long term?

Steve Brine: The Government are already investing £16 billion in public health services over the spending review period. We made it a condition of the public health grant that local authorities have regard to the need to improve the take-up and outcomes of their drug and alcohol services. Local authorities are best placed to make those decisions. The investment in effective services means that the average waiting time is just three days and, according to our monitoring systems, treatment outcomes in Greater Manchester are generally better than or in line with the rest of England.

Mental Health: Education

Mary Glindon: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on promoting improved education in schools and youth settings to tackle the stigma associated with mental health.

Jeremy Hunt: Ahead of our autumn Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, we are having productive discussions with the Department for Education on the vital role that schools can play in tackling both mental health problems and the stigma surrounding them.

Mary Glindon: The YMCA and NHS’s #IAMWHOLE campaign, which was launched this morning, shows that young people seeking help are often dismissed by those around them, largely due to a lack of understanding of mental health difficulties. Will the Secretary of State meet the YMCA to discuss what can be done to combat the stigma?

Jeremy Hunt: I am more than happy to meet the YMCA. I also want to point out the amazing work done by the “Time2Change” campaign. I was at an event to mark its 10th anniversary, and I heard from young people who have spoken up about their mental health conditions, which takes a lot of courage. Things are changing, and we can draw a lot of hope from what is happening on the ground.

Desmond Swayne: Family doctors undertake such work, but why have only a quarter of them had any formal training in mental health?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that a GP is often the first point of contact for many people. What are we doing? Three thousand mental health professionals will be seconded to GP surgeries over the next few years to give GPs the back-up they need in that area.

John Bercow: Not for the first time, I implore the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to issue to colleagues his textbook on succinct questions.

Vincent Cable: Since the demand for children and youth mental health services far outstrips supply, will the Secretary of State consider diverting resources to voluntary bodies, such as the admirable Off The Record in my constituency, which have a much lower threshold for referral?

Jeremy Hunt: We will look at the role of voluntary organisations, and I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they have an incredibly important role to play. We must also consider the role of schools, because teachers are extremely enthusiastic to do more around mental health. I think that if we give them more support there is a lot more they could do.

Jim Shannon: The Secretary of State will know that when it comes to physical health and stigma, the Department will react right away. Do the Government now recognise the importance of treating mental health with equal status to physical health?

Jeremy Hunt: We absolutely recognise that and we have legislated for it. The children and mental health Green Paper will take further steps in that direction.

Bournville Gardens Health and Community Medical Centre

Richard Burden: What progress has been made on the Bournville gardens health and community medical centre project in Birmingham.

Steve Brine: The building of the new health and wellbeing centre is supported by NHS England for funding in principle through the estates and technology transformation fund, subject to due diligence checks including a value for money exercise.

Richard Burden: That is fine, but is it not the case that although approval was given by the NHS technology and transformation fund last autumn, NHS England has spent the past 18 months negotiating new procedures for the premises cost directions? The delays in those procedures are jeopardising things such as that health and wellbeing centre. Is it not time that Ministers stepped in to ensure that projects on which everyone agrees can be approved under existing regulations and should not have to wait for the renegotiations?

Steve Brine: The hon. Gentleman is right that NHS England has been negotiating changes to the premises cost directions, which govern how we manage premises costs for general practitioners, but that is not the reason for the delay. We are working through the detail of the content of the scheme and it is not yet at the point of seeking approval. At the end of the day, this is public money and I think that the hon. Gentleman and everybody in this House would expect me to make sure that things are done properly.

Congenital Heart Services: North-West

Lucy Powell: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of congenital heart services in the north-west.

Philip Dunne: As the hon. Lady knows, the adult congenital heart disease service provided in Manchester has been included in the long-standing clinical assessment of CHD services undertaken by NHS England, which is now reviewing the more than 7,500 responses to the public consultation, which ended in July. The adult CHD service in Manchester was suspended by the trust in June, when the only CHD surgeon left. Hospitals in Leeds and Newcastle continue to deliver level 1 care and paediatric CHD services continue to be provided by Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.

Lucy Powell: Is not the truth behind what happened that Ministers and NHS England prejudged the review and therefore left services untenable and unviable in Manchester? There are no level 1 adult congenital heart services anywhere in the north-west and patients are having to travel to Leeds and Newcastle for the treatment. Will the Minister apologise today to those patients for this botched review, which has left patients with a great deal of uncertainty and has meant that they have had to travel huge distances?

Philip Dunne: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not want to confuse her patients by suggesting that relying on a single surgeon for prolonged periods is necessarily in their best interests. The facilities that remain in Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust are intended to remain and include CHD outpatient services for adults and children. Level 2 services also continue to be provided in Manchester.

Unmet Social Care Needs

Preet Kaur Gill: What estimate he has made of the number of people living with unmet social care needs.

Jackie Doyle-Price: By passing the Care Act 2014, this Government established a national eligibility threshold that defines the care needs that local authorities are required to meet. This eliminates the postcode lottery of eligibility across England. Social care continues to be a key priority for this Government. That is why local authorities in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years. In the longer term, we are committed to establishing adult social care on a fair and more sustainable basis.

Preet Kaur Gill: Age UK estimates that nearly 1.2 million older people have unmet care needs. After the Government dropped their disastrous dementia tax policy during the general election, all they can offer people is yet another consultation. In the words of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, is it not time the Government just got “on with it”?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I do not recognise Age UK’s assessment of unmet need. As I said, the requirements are enshrined in statute and local authorities should be held to that. In response to the hon. Lady’s final point, let me say that we are getting on with it, but we need a real cultural change in how we tackle these issues. There is a long-term issue to address in the fact that we are all living longer. This is not just going to need a sticking  plaster; we will need to take the public with us. So this is not just another consultation; it is a vehicle for making sure that we as a society tackle this issue once and for all.

Derek Thomas: The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust was put into special measures last week, but delayed discharge caused by unmet social care needs contributes to the pressure in the trust. I welcome the £12 million that was awarded to the council this April to address that, but what more can the Minister do to help to relieve the pressure? Will he meet me and my Cornish colleagues to discuss the healthcare challenges faced in Cornwall and on Scilly?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited twice in the past year, and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) is more than willing to meet my hon. Friend next week, with other colleagues.

Clinical Commissioning Groups and Local Authorities

Bob Neill: What assessment he has made of the level of co-operation between clinical commissioning groups and local authorities.

Steve Brine: The Government want and expect strong relationships and joint working between the NHS and local authorities to make a success of STPs. They are meant to be a one-system solution.

Bob Neill: The London Borough of Bromley has had considerable success in joint working with its clinical commissioning group, through joint appointments, a multi-agency use of funding and a complete sign-up from the council, but we are concerned that reorganisation may detract from this operation at the local level. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss Bromley’s proposals to build on the success it has had so far?

Steve Brine: We are confident that we have some of the best STP leaders in place. I was looking last night at the figures for south-east London, and I saw that my hon. Friend’s local STP is highly rated, both on leadership and overall. I was thinking about him in the gym last night and I thought he might say what he did, so let me say that I am very happy to meet him and to broker a meeting between him and the NHS.

John Bercow: It is interesting to hear about the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman when he is on the treadmill or the exercise bike—it is always useful to have a bit of additional information.

Rachael Maskell: Despite co-operation between the CCG and the local authority, we have had severe rationing and cuts and a seriously underfunded mental health service: the funding formula is seriously failing the health economy in York. In particular, the capped expenditure process will make it far, far worse. Instead of just slashing budgets, will the Secretary of State meet me to understand York’s health economy and to put real solutions in place?

Steve Brine: I am always happy to meet Members, including the hon. Lady in order to talk about York. As the shadow Secretary of State said, the STP proposals are not about Tory cuts; they are about redesigning services in the local area. So I am happy to meet her to talk about her area.

Topical Questions

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: This week is Baby Loss Awareness Week, and the whole House will want to mark the tragedy faced by too many parents every year by redoubling our efforts to reduce avoidable baby death and harm. I am pleased to tell the House that to mark World Mental Health Day today the entire Cabinet was this morning briefed by two of the country’s leading mental health experts, Poppy Jaman and Professor Sir Simon Wessely, on our plans announced today to roll out mental health first aid to 1 million people in England.

Jim Cunningham: Can the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made regarding an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely tell the hon. Gentleman the answer to that: we have been making very important progress with families over the summer; and we have decided the shape of the inquiry and the leadership of the inquiry and all the factors around the terms of reference need to be decided in close consultation with the affected families. So we are keen to get on as quickly as possible, but we have made some progress in understanding their wishes.

Royston Smith: Oesophageal cancer is one of the most aggressive cancers with some of the lowest survival rates. Early symptoms are frequently masked with over-the-counter heartburn remedies. Will the Secretary of State consider meeting manufacturers and charities such as Barrett’s Wessex in my Southampton, Itchen constituency to develop a clear warning on packaging to encourage regular users of heartburn remedies to seek medical advice about their condition?

Steve Brine: I thank one of my constituency neighbours for that question. Improving outcomes for all cancers is one of my main priorities in this job. I visited the Christie hospital in Manchester last week to see the progress being made on the proton beam therapy facility there. I know Barratt’s Wessex in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it also does work with some of my constituents. We must do better on these rarer cancers with poor outcomes. I will look at what BW does exactly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I gently remind Ministers that answers from the Front Bench must be very brief during topical questions, because many other colleagues are waiting to contribute and I do not want to disappoint them, as that would be unfair.

Jon Ashworth: Can the Secretary of State tell us how many elective operations he expects to be cancelled by 31 December?

Jeremy Hunt: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that every year over Christmas time, when we know that hospitals will be busy, we suspend elective care in particularly busy places. That is how we keep patients safe.

Jon Ashworth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but already more than 80,000 elective operations have been cancelled. That is an increase on the past year. A&E attendance is up on the past year, bed occupancy is higher than last year and the Care Quality Commission has today warned that the NHS is straining at the seams. Winter is coming. Last week, the Tory party made spending commitments worth £15 billion, but not 1p extra for the NHS, so will the NHS fare worse or better than last year this winter, or are we set for another winter crisis made in Downing Street?

Jeremy Hunt: What the CQC actually said this morning is that the majority of health and care systems across the NHS are providing good or outstanding quality; that the safety of care is going up; and that performance is improving. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right that we are always concerned about winter. Let me tell him the new things that are happening this year to help prepare the NHS: £1 billion more going into the social care system in the most recent Budget; a £100 million capital programme for A&E departments; 2,400 beds being freed up; and an increasing number of clinicians at 111 call centres. A lot is happening, but, overall, let me remind him that our NHS is seeing 1,800 more people every single day within four hours—that is something to celebrate.

Bob Neill: The Minister will be aware that clinical commissioning groups and the London region are currently consulting on changes to governance and commissioning arrangements. Given the positive words already said about arrangements in Bromley, will my right hon. Friend confirm that no changes of any kind will undermine the accountability at a local level, or the ability to commission locally in Bromley?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that because the legal accountability, whatever co-operation arrangements are made, will stay exactly the same.

John Mann: My hospital trust tells me that there are no open or distance learning courses available anywhere to train new nurses. Considering the number of local people who are keen to be trained and the barriers that face them, will the Secretary of State agree to have a chinwag with me to solve this problem in Bassetlaw?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a very attractive offer, and I am always happy to have a chinwag with the hon. Gentleman. Last week, we announced something that I hope will resolve that, which is that we are looking at holding nurse training courses on-site in hospital and community sites so that experienced healthcare assistants do not have to go to a higher education institution to do their training.

Jack Lopresti: The last Labour Government downgraded Frenchay hospital in my constituency. My constituents and I have been waiting for several years for the much-needed and much-promised community hospital. What action are the Government taking to ensure that that finally happens?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for Frenchay hospital and keeps it uppermost in our minds. The way in which we are looking at the pattern of health provision for the next period is through the STP process, and I encourage him to engage with the STP leadership in his area and make the case for Frenchay hospital.

David Linden: The palliative care we provide to terminally ill children is an incredibly serious topic. I want to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and to press the Minister on giving children’s care parity of funding with adult care. Will she follow the example of the Scottish Government and provide parity of funding?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As I previously advised the House, I am in conversation with Together for Short Lives to look at how we improve palliative care for children. This clearly raises a different set of circumstances and sensitivities, and it is essential that we do our best for these children.

Huw Merriman: Do Ministers have any plans to review the “do not resuscitate” guidance for hospitals? I have a constituent who has such an order placed on him, despite the fact that he has left hospital and is in a care home, it cannot be rescinded and his family have not consented.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Certainly, in CQC inspections in the past, the whole issue of “do not resuscitate” orders has been an area of concern. This is something we will very much look at as part of the end of life policy, but I would like to hear more about the case my hon. Friend mentioned, if he would like to write to me.

Clive Lewis: Accountable care systems are a systemic change to the way the NHS will be managed and a significant step towards an Americanised care system, so will the Minister explain why NHS England is having a fundamental reorganisation take place under the radar without a national consultation?

Jeremy Hunt: Accountable care systems are supported by such rabid right wingers as Polly Toynbee, writing in The Guardian, because they are about health systems coming together to co-operate to give the best care for patients. That is what is happening across the NHS, and it is already delivering great results.

Craig Tracey: This Friday marks Secondary Breast Cancer Awareness Day. In 2015, the Government recognised that data collection for this type of cancer was not good enough. However, research by Breast Cancer Care shows that less than a  third of trusts collect the number of people diagnosed with secondary breast cancer. Will the Minister confirm what actions the Government are taking to ensure that all trusts are collecting this information, given its importance to improving outcomes?

Steve Brine: I thank the co-chair of the all-party group on breast cancer in what is BCAM—Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We must never forget the treatment and support we give to those living with and beyond the cancer diagnosis. We must always remember those living with secondary breast cancer and the work of the third sector—brilliant charities such as Breast Cancer Haven and Breast Cancer Care—so that we can focus on access to a specialist nurse. As my hon. Friend says, the collection of data is critical, and I will be discussing that at my roundtable with some of the main players in the cancer community later this week.

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister abolish the patient penalty and scrap hospital car parking charges, which punish both the sick and hard-working NHS staff, as well as causing problems for residents living adjacent to NHS hospitals, such as Peterlee Community Hospital in my constituency?

Jeremy Hunt: I do understand the concerns raised, and all hospitals are under a responsibility to make sure that they have proper arrangements in place for people on low incomes and people who have to visit hospitals regularly.

Kevin Hollinrake: Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to humanity. Will the Minister outline the progress we have made in opening up the £50 million global antimicrobial resistance innovation fund to applications?

Steve Brine: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We expect the first launch to be the bilateral UK-China partnership £10 million fund, which we expect to go live early in 2018. Further information on the calls for the remaining £40 million will be announced in due course.

Mary Glindon: In the light of the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics showing a record number of drug-related deaths registered in England and Wales, will the Minister meet members of the drugs, alcohol and justice parliamentary group to discuss this issue and see how it can be addressed?

Steve Brine: I am very happy to meet the group, and the hon. Lady should contact my office. The Home Office is the lead Department for cross-governmental drugs policy, and we obviously released the new cross-Government drugs strategy earlier this year. However, this cannot all be about drugs services and picking up the pieces after things have gone wrong; it can also be about prevention. We should, as somebody once said at this Dispatch Box, understand a little more and condemn a little less.

Wendy Morton: This month is Stoptober, and someone who manages to stop smoking for 28 days is five times more likely to quit for good.  Legislation is obviously part of this, but perhaps the Minister could update us on what more could be done.

Steve Brine: At the last health oral questions, I committed to publishing the new tobacco control plan. I did that on 18 July. We have had a lot of legislation, from this and the previous Government. It is Stoptober, and there has never been a better time to quit. We now need to take that legislation, work with the control plan the Government have published and work it through local authorities and smoking cessation services, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right that where buddying services are used, we have better outcomes.

Rosena Allin-Khan: There is a crisis in mental health staffing levels. Does the Secretary of State accept that today, throughout the country, there are 2,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were when he took charge five years ago?

Jeremy Hunt: What I accept is that we have 30,000 more professionals working in mental health than when my Government came into office. There has been a decline in the number of mental health nurses, but we have in place plans to train 8,000 more mental health nurses, and that will make a big difference.[Official Report, 17 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 6MC.]

Richard Graham: The Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust capital expenditure bid would fund a 24-hour urgent care service, and it would also increase bed capacity and improve hospital performance in Gloucester and Cheltenham, to the benefit of patients throughout the county. When do Ministers expect to announce the results of the bid? Will they take this particular bid into careful consideration?

Philip Dunne: I am aware that, under the Gloucestershire STP, a proposal has been submitted for capital funding to support plans to improve the clinical environment for patients and staff at the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to join me in awaiting the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget as to whether there will be a second phase of capital funding for STPs. If there is any funding, it will be allocated thereafter.

Kate Green: GPs in my constituency tell me that because of changes to personal data rules they will no longer be able to charge for providing reports for private insurance and legal claims. Will Ministers update the House on the situation? What assessment has been made of how GPs will cope with the additional costs they will face?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to look into that matter and write to the hon. Lady.

Helen Jones: If nurses or other NHS staff are awarded a pay rise above the current pay cap, will the Government fund that pay rise fully, or will they require it to be met by cuts in patient services?

Jeremy Hunt: That is something I cannot answer right now, because the latitude that the Chancellor has given me with respect to the negotiation of future pay rises is partly linked to productivity improvements that we will  negotiate at the same time. The fact is, though, that we do have that flexibility, and I hope we can get a win-win as a result.

Heidi Alexander: May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of nursing associates? Given that evidence shows that for every 25 patients for whom a professionally qualified nurse is replaced by a non-nurse, mortality on an average ward rises by 21%, how comfortable is he with reports that hospitals in Lincolnshire and Leicester are using nursing associates to plug gaps in the nursing workforce?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady should be very careful before talking down nurse associates. They do a fantastic job, they are trained, they are helping our NHS and they are welcomed by their nursing colleagues.

Bill Esterson: Under this Government, there has been an unprecedented fall in the number of nurses: the NHS is short of 40,000 nurses and more than 6,000 have gone since 2010, under this Conservative Government. When will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he is failing the NHS and failing patients, and when will he do something about it?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect, I really think the hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right. The number of nurses has gone up, not down, since this Government have been in office. The number of nurses in our hospitals has gone up by more than 11,000, because this Government are supporting safer care in all our hospitals.

John Cryer: The number of unfilled nursing posts in London is now more than 10,000—whatever the Secretary of State’s figures say, it is more than 10,000. When will they be filled?

Jeremy Hunt: When we have put through the biggest increase in nurse training places in the history of the NHS—the 25% increase that I announced last week.

Jo Swinson: Suicide is the most common cause of death for men under the age of 45, and men are significantly less likely than women to seek support from loved ones or medical professionals when they have mental health problems. How can services be better targeted at men to encourage them to seek help more quickly and thereby reduce misery?

Jeremy Hunt: This is a very important issue and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. The Time to Change campaign has said that this year it will focus on men, specifically to try to address the issues she mentioned. We are rolling out crisis plans throughout the country to make sure we are better able to reach people who reach out to us.

Mike Amesbury: What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to the Amplify youth project in Northwich in my constituency that timely and improved access to mental health services will be provided?

Jeremy Hunt: We have said that by 2020-21 we want to be treating an extra 70,000 young people every year, but the truth is that that is still not enough. We need to  bring down waiting times much more dramatically, which is why we are doing a lot of work across Government and we have a Green Paper coming out shortly.

James Frith: Newly released NHS guidance makes it clear that walk-in services can have a future as part of urgent treatment centres. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and thousands of patients in Bury North that Bury walk-in centre can, should and must stay open and that Bury CCG should ensure this when it concludes its review?

Philip Dunne: Current plans by NHS England to look at the urgent and emergency care pathways include creating 150 urgent treatment centres by the end of this year. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about Bury and will respond in due course.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support in the House for his Government’s commitment to enact the principle of deemed consent for organ donation? He knows from a previous meeting that my private Member’s Bill is due for its Second Reading early in the new year. Will he therefore agree to an early meeting now, so that we can co-ordinate the two and see how to advance his intentions? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) will be with me again and, with the Secretary of State’s commitment to this, we look forward to an early meeting.

Jeremy Hunt: I very much enjoyed our previous meeting, which was not so very long ago. I hope the hon. Gentleman is happy that we have made good progress since that meeting, with the Prime Minister announcing that we will start a consultation, but I am always happy to see him and his colleague the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).

Gareth Snell: The Secretary of State will be aware that he and he alone has responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to deal with referrals from local authorities of clinical commissioning group decisions. Almost a year ago, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council referred a matter to the Minister regarding the closure of community care beds. To date we have had no response. Letters from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)   have gone unanswered. When will we get a response? Is this a case of wilful indifference towards his responsibilities or just ignorance of the Act?

Jeremy Hunt: May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has not had a prompt reply to any letters to me or my Department? I will look into the issue that he raises and ensure that he gets a rapid response.

Mohammad Yasin: Yesterday the private ambulance service that provided non-urgent patient transport at Bedford hospital ceased trading, leaving the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust to pick up the pieces. Will the Minister order an inquiry to establish what went wrong, and does he agree that using private companies to run key services for our NHS is simply not working?

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that private and independent providers of patient transport services provide services all across the country and support the ambulance services in that work. I will look into the case that he raises in relation to Bedford and write to him.

Ruth George: All of the local dementia and rehabilitation beds in my rural constituency of High Peak are earmarked for closure. In some cases, patients and their families will have to travel 25 miles across the moors to Chesterfield. Given the importance of staff being able to work with families to support patients to return home, will the Minister agree to look again at such decisions, which make this work practically impossible?

Philip Dunne: The hon. Lady will be aware that the STP plans being considered for her area include providing more services in the community by community nurses and other nurses in our community hospitals being reassigned, which will allow them to undertake care for more patients than they can at present within community hospitals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but we must move on. Demand invariably tends to exceed supply.

BAE SYSTEMS MILITARY AIR & INFORMATION SITES: JOB LOSSES

Mark Hendrick: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if she will make a statement on the likelihood of over 1,000 jobs being lost across the north of England at BAE Systems Military Air & Information sites.

Claire Perry: I know that the Government, and indeed all of us, are disappointed to hear the news that BAE Systems is considering reductions of up to 1,400 staff in its military air and information business, 375 in its maritime services division and 150 in its applied intelligence business. This is a concerning time for those working for BAE Systems, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. That is why I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government stand ready to support fully those affected. Indeed, colleagues across the Ministry of Defence, my Department and others are reviewing what support we can offer the company as it goes through this process. Of course, the Department for Work and Pensions is also standing by to provide whatever advice or support is required.
I would like to set out three main points. First, I will provide an update on the process; secondly, I will explain the rationale for the changes; and thirdly, I will set out what the Government are doing to support BAE Systems and this vital sector with our business. The company will now enter a 30-day statutory consultation process, and no final decisions will be taken about the level or type of redundancies until that process is complete. The Government will continue to work with BAE Systems to ensure that compulsory redundancies are kept to a minimum, and the company assures us that the reductions will be managed on a voluntary basis as far as possible. I emphasise that, as is usual in such cases, the DWP rapid response team is engaged and standing by, ready to deploy. It is incredibly important that the skills that people in the workforce have built up are retained in the UK industry as far as possible. That is why we will be using the talent retention system that was designed by my Department, working with the sector, to ensure that vital skills are not lost to the UK.
I turn now to the rationale for the announcement. The House should be absolutely clear that BAE Systems has taken this decision as a result of normal business practice. The decision is the result of internal restructuring and a drive to transform its business so that it can continue to be one of our most efficient and effective companies, generating export orders across the world. This is not related to any UK defence spending decisions. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they like, but I hope that we can avoid getting politics into this. It was very striking how during conference speech after conference speech Labour Members—not the hon. Members opposite me, for whom I have great respect—went out of their way to criticise the industry that we are talking about. I suggest that we calm down and think about the people affected and what we can do to support them.
In the last year, the Ministry of Defence has spent almost £4 billion with BAE Systems, as part of the £18 billion—half of which is spent in the manufacturing sector—that we spend across Government buying products and services from UK industry. We continually bang the drum and lead the charge for our world-leading defence industry right across the globe, maximising export opportunities for companies such as BAE Systems and the thousands of people employed in their supply chains. Indeed, only last month the Defence Secretary signed a statement of intent with Qatar to buy 24 Typhoons and six Hawks from BAE Systems. This is extremely positive news, and it demonstrates continued confidence globally in Britain’s defence and aerospace industry. We will continue to work with BAE Systems to maximise opportunities for the Typhoon and the Hawk training aircraft, and the Type 26 global combat ship, in markets such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Belgium, Finland, Canada and Australia.
In conclusion, we absolutely understand that this is a worrying time for those affected. We are determined to do all we can to support BAE Systems’ future export opportunities, and I stand ready to meet workers, unions or MPs who are concerned about the potential impact of the announcement in their constituencies.

Mark Hendrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. Today’s announcement by BAE Systems has come as a huge blow to thousands of workers and their families across Lancashire in the run-up to Christmas. The majority of Lancashire MPs have today written to the Prime Minister seeking immediate action and offering to establish a taskforce to avert the disaster. We ask the Minister for a swift, meaningful and positive response to our request.
What intermediate and longer-term actions are the Government taking to win contracts around the globe, to fly the flag and to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Hawk? That is essential to sustaining the UK’s leading-edge technology and sovereign capability, as well as highly skilled jobs and the massive supply chain in the north-west of England. In order to maintain a leading edge, we must look to the future. BAE Systems has taken a big step by developing a £12 million academy in Lancashire. Will the Government play their role and announce an industrial strategy for aerospace, as they have done with shipbuilding, and will they commit themselves to assisting BAE Systems to develop a sixth-generation manned fighter aircraft?
With my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), I met Prime Minister Cameron to urge him to secure vital contracts with Japan and India. We were assured that there was good news on the horizon, but there clearly was not. The Minister mentioned Qatar and that is obviously positive, but it is nothing like the size of the other contracts. Lancashire builds the finest because we have the best workforce in the world. We do not want to be let down again, so I ask the Minister to use her good offices to impress on the Prime Minister the major concerns of Lancashire MPs and indeed of MPs from across the House.

Claire Perry: I commend the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues for their absolutely resolute support both for the company and the sector. Of course  I would be delighted to meet the taskforce, and I think we should extend the offer to the workers and unions affected. It is absolutely clear that we need maximum communication about the process, or to encourage the company to ensure maximum communication, particularly at this worrying time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have a vital part to play in banging the drum for British exports. I have mentioned the Qatar statement of intent, and clearly there are ongoing conversations with countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that have expressed an interest in this technology. There is an appetite around the world for this technology. For every unit that is sold, the whole provision—supply and maintenance—will have a measurable impact on the work available for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other Members.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the industrial strategy for this sector. We are very keen—we are already having conversations about this with the aerospace sector—on a bespoke sector deal. He will know that we have worked with the industry, on initiatives such as the technology for the future combat air system, to set out what we need to do both across this export-facing part of the business and right across the supply chain to ensure we have the right level of investment and skills.

John Bercow: I call the good doctor—Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: When BAE Systems says to the Government that this is normal business practice, will the Government reply to BAE Systems by reminding it that it is not a normal business, because it enjoys a near monopoly position in many parts of the British defence procurement structure? Will they therefore extract from BAE Systems a promise to work closely with the Government to examine to what extent any streamlining is really necessary and to what extent it can be ameliorated by common action, bearing in mind the special treatment that BAE Systems so often receives from the United Kingdom Government?

Claire Perry: My right hon. Friend is right to remind us that we spend almost £4 billion in procuring products and services from BAE Systems. Again, if we want to have a globally competitive, highly efficient bastion of success in this vital industry, it is really important to allow the company to go through its management processes. Of course we want to procure from BAE Systems, but we also procure from a wide range of other suppliers. It would be wrong for the Government to try to interfere in business processes, but we can say that we are committed to making sure that the company does this as sensitively as possible.
We also want to explore other opportunities. I am struck by the locations of some of the plants that may be affected, and I am also struck by the investment opportunities with, for example, the Siemens investment in offshore wind turbine production in Hull. There are opportunities for skilled engineering staff right accross the UK and right across the region. [Interruption.] I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who knows Hull very well, talking down a major investment in skilled engineering. We remain absolutely committed to working with this company.

Nia Griffith: Employees and families across the country will be hit hard by the news that has come from BAE today. The loss of nearly 2,000 highly skilled jobs is nothing short of devastating for communities and local economies that have a proud history of defence manufacturing. Moreover, if these redundancies go ahead, there is a very real risk that these skills will be lost forever, with a knock-on impact on this country’s manufacturing capability. What support will the Government be offering to those highly skilled workers who have lost their jobs, and how will the Government support the communities affected?
A vibrant defence industry is vital for the security of this country and it brings immense economic benefits. In its statement, BAE points to uncertainty in future orders as a reason for the job cuts, and we know that the Government have pursued a stop-start approach which has not given the industry the long-term stability that it desperately needs. Will the Minister now agree that it is time for the Government to come forward with a proper defence industrial strategy to enable the sector to plan ahead? I know from my conversations with those in the industry that they are very concerned about the gaping funding holes in the MOD’s defence equipment plan. What action are the Government taking to address those and to give the industry confidence?
UK-based defence companies are also facing a great deal of uncertainty owing to the Government’s handling of Brexit. We know that the defence and aerospace industries have wide-reaching supply chains that cross many borders, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the sector is not disadvantaged by Brexit, and that companies do not take their manufacturing elsewhere?
Finally, the slowdown in Hawk production was also cited as a reason for cuts, but the Government could take immediate steps to counter that by bringing forward orders for nine new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows, thus securing their future as the face of the RAF and a global ambassador for British engineering across the world. That would provide a much needed boost to the industry. Can the Minister commit to doing that today?
This is no time for Government to stand by and do nothing. Ministers need to rise to their responsibilities and realise that proactive engagement with the industry could make a real difference to the workers concerned and to the future of our country’s defence industry.

Claire Perry: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Lady about the need to engage closely to understand the reasons. To reassure her on a couple of points that she raised, this is not due to any stop-start change in the Government’s procurement; this is in fact due to gaps in bringing forward some of the export orders. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has signed a statement of intent with Qatar, and indeed we are standing by to do everything possible to support further export opportunities.
The hon. Lady may not have heard, but I mentioned the talent retention system. She is absolutely right: for too long we have not thought about people and their skills and worked out whether there are other opportunities, especially in the region, to ensure that those skills are not lost. That is why we will be deploying the talent retention system that has been developed by my Department with this industry, and looking to see what more can  be done.
To allay some of the hon. Lady’s questions about our commitment to shipbuilding, I can tell her that we have published the national shipbuilding strategy. I am told that we will be bringing forward the refresh of the defence industry policy document very shortly.
We need to focus on the people who may be concerned about this, meet them to gain an understanding of their concerns, and see what more can be done, particularly to ensure that those vital skills are not lost to this or other sectors.

Mark Francois: The tranche 3 variant of the Typhoon aircraft, especially when equipped with the new electronically scanned radar, will be one of the most capable and effective combat aircraft in the world. The Minister has already mentioned the letter of intent with Qatar for 24 Typhoons, and there are, as she has intimated, a number of other countries around the globe that are still interested in Typhoon, not least Saudi Arabia. Can she assure Members in all parts of the House that, just as the Government gave strong support to the Qatari deal, they will strain every sinew to try to support further Typhoon exports, not least in Saudi Arabia?

Claire Perry: I am nervously rising to answer a question from my right hon. Friend, who knows more about this than many of us will ever know. He is absolutely right: not only have we signed the statement of intent, but only last month the Secretary of State got on a plane to Saudi Arabia to press the case for using these aircraft, not just for the upfront sale but for the thousands of jobs that depend on the long-term upgrade and servicing.
All Members across the House should be supporting these export deals and the jobs that are reliant on them. It was a shame that hon. Members—[Interruption.] Well, they say, “Here we go.” Perhaps they were not listening at conference. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) used her moment on the Labour party conference podium to attack the Government for strengthening co-operation and the deals that this brings with our key regional ally. Let us get behind this industry, so that we can protect and invest in this technology for the future.

Carol Monaghan: This morning’s news is deeply worrying for BAE workforces across the UK, and we have only just heard that that includes 15 workers in Fife. Of course, it is not just the 2,000 BAE workers who will be affected but the small and medium-sized enterprises, the supply chains and the communities as well. The SNP offer our sympathy this morning to all those who are affected directly and indirectly by today’s announcement.
This is the latest evidence of the Government failing to deliver on defence programmes, and this is not just about an export industry. This is about undermining skilled jobs, undermining our own defence industry and undermining the defence of the UK as a whole. What are the Government doing to investigate what has gone wrong in BAE?
Skilled workers have been mentioned a number of times. Skilled workers are exactly that—skilled. They cannot easily move from one position to another; extra training is required, so what are the Government doing  to assist them? And what has been done to provide guarantees to those who are currently still employed in the sector?
Finally, can the Minister now confirm that future MOD orders will come as a steady drumbeat, and not be plagued by the dithering, delays and indecision that have contributed to today’s announcement?

Claire Perry: I appreciate that point, and of course the hon. Lady is right to speak for those who may be concerned about their job future, but she represents, proudly, I know, a country that has built two of the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever purchased and that has contracts to build eight Type 26 frigates and five offshore patrol vehicles—two decades’ worth of shipbuilding contracts signed by this Government. She refers to a stop-start approach. That is why the strategic defence and security review system has been brought forward. That is why we are absolutely determined to spend taxpayers’ money wisely, and supporting British industry, UK industry, is fundamental to that. I suggest that she has a look at some of those proud ships—the QE2 class—and perhaps she will come back just a little bit more cheerful.

Mark Menzies: As the Member of Parliament for Warton, where final assembly of Hawk and Typhoon takes place and where 750 of the jobs that will be lost are largely located, I urge the Minister to work, as the Government did in 2011, to mitigate job losses. Then a 3,000 headline figure was mitigated to 100 compulsory losses. A similar effort must be put in this time.
Secondly, thank you for the work that the Government are doing on supporting defence exports, particularly to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the Prime Minister’s visits to Bahrain and Saudi and the Defence Secretary’s visit to Qatar. Please will the Minister not be put off by siren voices that want us to disengage from the largest export customers for these aircraft?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend makes the case very powerfully. Of course, at Warton there are some additional benefits from the F-35 contracts being brought forward, but he is absolutely right to say that we must be really focused on these jobs and the uncertainty, but we must also be resolute in pursuing export opportunities for this fine British company.

Karl Turner: The Red Arrows renewal programme is well overdue and is entirely in the Government’s gift. If it was renewed, it would save jobs at Brough and the Lancashire plants. Get on with it!

Claire Perry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s pulses beat a little faster when the Red Arrows come over, as mine do when they fly over my constituency. I hear what he says and will discuss it with Ministers, but will he please work with me and others to ensure that this uncertainty is minimised for those in his constituency?

Anna Soubry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat concerning, if not a little peculiar, that those who are standing up, notably representatives of the SNP, to condemn these job losses  sing the praises of BAE, quite rightly, yet support a policy of being opposed to all arms sales, notably to Saudi Arabia?

Claire Perry: My right hon. Friend knows that I share her position. I would make the point that these are potential job losses and that we are at the start of the process. There has to be a consultation period. A significant amount of work needs to be done with the unions, the workforce, broader industry and skilled employers right across the affected regions to ensure that we do not lose skills, that we minimise job losses, and that any job losses that do come forward are managed through voluntary redundancy.

John Woodcock: The bottom line is that, had exports gone to plan, these sites would not be in this position. We have heard a lot of commitment in words, but we need to see action from the Government. May I make what I hope is a constructive suggestion? The Minister’s point on participation has been heard and I suggest she does not repeat it now. There are ambassadors all around this House, including on the Labour Benches, who could help in an official position to deliver and to get orders for their workforces in their communities. Will she please consider that?

Claire Perry: I commend the hon. Gentleman, and the people he represents in Barrow, for flying the flag and doing such an amazing job for such a vital British industry. He knows better than anyone else the importance of maintaining those skills. At this point, I think we will all put our shoulders to the wheel and do whatever we can to fly the flag for British exports. I would be delighted to work cross-party to do just that.

Victoria Atkins: BAE Systems is a vital employer in my constituency. It maintains the Typhoon jets that fly from RAF Coningsby and many of my constituents commute to Brough in Humberside, where BAE Systems provides highly skilled careers and apprenticeships. Sadly, we have heard today that Brough is to lose 400 jobs. In that spirit, I very much hope the Government will work with BAE Systems to ensure opportunities for employees and apprentices at Brough. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the commitment to spend 2% of our budget on defence will continue, and that the Government will continue to support this great British company?

Claire Perry: We will of course spend at least 2% of our national income on the defence budget. We will do all we can by working with the company and other players, in particular through the talent retention system. One crucial point, in response to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), is that we cannot lose these skills from the British workforce. They are vital and they have been acquired over many years. We have to ensure that they are maintained and that the productivity they generate is developed.

Jamie Stone: What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to sell the Type 31e frigate to the United States? The Secretary of State for Defence has mentioned that that is a  possibility. Secondly, will the Minister urge the Secretary of State for International Trade to come to the Chamber to explain what exactly he is doing for BAE?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is flying the flag relentlessly for all aspects of the British economy, including British ships. I am sure he would be delighted to answer a written question or a letter from the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Bob Seely: I spoke to BAE this morning as soon as I heard the news. What support will the Department for Work and Pensions provide to those affected? Will the Government assure me that any support package includes Isle of Wight workers affected at the BAE Cowes plant in my constituency? May I also highlight the importance of the advanced radar programme on the Isle of Wight, both for UK defence and for island jobs?

Claire Perry: The Department for Work and Pensions has a well tried, tested and effective rapid response deployment process to get in and talk to companies and people affected during the consultation process to make sure they are aware of any statutory rights and responsibilities, but also of any opportunities. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about the Isle of Wight and I will make sure it is reflected in any work going forward.

John Spellar: I am afraid the Minister really does not get it. When the French, the Americans or the Russians pursue a contract, they take a relentless whole-of-government approach. Incidentally, that is how it was under Prime Minister Tony Blair. On behalf of the industry and its skilled workforce, will the Government up their game and secure new contracts, especially with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?

Claire Perry: The right hon. Gentleman is brave to mention the former Prime Minister’s name. Of course this is a whole-of-government responsibility. [Interruption.] In other countries, leaders of the official Opposition do not stand up in public and criticise exactly the sort of defence deals we are trying to sign, or put at risk the renewal of technologies such as Trident, which are absolutely vital to our technology and knowledge base. I suggest he has a word with the Labour Front Bench and then perhaps we can have more of a conversation.

Richard Graham: BAE’s huge contribution to skills, jobs and exports depends not least on cross-party political support for our exports to foreign Governments. Some on the Opposition Benches absolutely understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Labour party leadership loses no opportunity to criticise what those of us in the Prime Minister’s trade envoy team are trying to do. Will the Minister confirm that although there will be job losses in some parts of BAE, there have been significant increases in other divisions, for example at least 350 new jobs in its cyber division?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that this is a very dynamic business, which has to respond to globally changing conditions. It employs almost 36,000 people right across the UK. He is also absolutely right to point out other opportunities. It is absolutely critical that we back these British businesses,  focus on export opportunities and work together. Many of us represent constituencies affected by these sorts of announcements and we all fly the flag for one the most successful companies in the world—BAE Systems. Let us get on and do it.

Ruth Smeeth: Our thoughts are with the workforce and their families who have received such devastating news. Let us be clear that the people who build and develop our military platforms are as vital to our national security and sovereign capability as those who operate them. We simply cannot afford to lose their skills. Will the Minister commit to developing a defence aerospace strategy, and to meeting immediately unions and employers across the sector to ensure we are not in this position again and can retain our sovereign capability?

Claire Perry: Like me, I am sure the hon. Lady is very pleased that we now have an industrial strategy that focuses on these vital sectors, putting together sector deals working with unions, employers and government. The offer has been made to all sectors to come forward with deals. As I understand it, the aerospace sector deal is well advanced.

Yvonne Fovargue: What actions is the Minister taking to ensure that all the young people who have started apprenticeships with BAE Systems and may be affected will be able to complete them, not only retaining the current skills we have but building the skills base for the future?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the vital role of apprentices. I think we are all proud of the fact that we now have over 3 million apprenticeship starts. Until we know—this will become clear through the consultation process—the details of any redundancies and the types of jobs that are being laid off, it is too early to comment, but she raises a very important point and I will take it under consideration.

Gordon Marsden: The job cuts at Warton and Samlesbury are twice what they were in November 2015, so it is not surprising that people in Blackpool and Fylde will be concerned. The supply chain has been mentioned. What specifically will the Minister and the Department do with buyers to ensure apprenticeships in supply chains are also supported, and that the Lancashire local enterprise partnership is given the support and resources it needs to support both BAE and the supply chain?

Claire Perry: We stand by ready to understand any potential impact, once the scale of any job reductions is known, and to support the Lancashire local enterprise partnership and other companies in the area to process, cope and adapt to any changes.

Chris Stephens: I have constituents who are BAE employees and, even though they are perhaps not directly affected, I know that they will be nervous. May I press the Minister on Ministry of Defence procurement processes? Specifically, will the Department look at work that is currently going out to international competition? I think that that could be avoided and that the work could be held in the UK.

Claire Perry: I refer to my earlier answer about the level of UK Government investment in Scotland, particularly in shipbuilding. We have to look at every procurement decision and understand whether it has the right capabilities for the sorts of conflicts that we ask our armed forces to undertake and what is best value for money for the taxpayer, so it will always be a mix. We should all be proud of the fact that the Government directly spend almost £4 billion a year with BAE Systems and about £18 billion a year with the British industrial sector.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister will win no friends in east Yorkshire by saying that people who might be made redundant from BAE Systems can go and get jobs in the renewables industry at Siemens. We need both sets of jobs in both industries—both, not one—to flourish in our area. I am not convinced at all that the Minister is taking our sovereign capability seriously if these jobs go. That is important to our national security, so what will she do about protecting it?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents. To put this in context, we are talking about a company that employs around 36,000 people right across the UK. It has to go through—as all companies do—a process to make itself as efficient and effective as possible so that the maximum number of productive jobs can be maintained. The level of engagement of the MOD and Secretaries of State is striking—getting on planes, signing the statement of intent with Qatar and pushing for the Saudi deal. This is what we need to do. She is right to say that we need both sorts of jobs. We need a vibrant, highly productive industrial sector that operates right across the UK, which is why she should welcome the industrial strategy and the work going on in the low-carbon economy.

Dan Carden: I worked at the Unite trade union when this country was faced with the steel crisis. This Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from a position where it would take no action to a position where it was willing to take a 25% stake in the industry. We are seeing the exact same thing again. If there was a serious industrial strategy, the Minister would take action and guarantee those jobs for the future of the industry.

Claire Perry: I lead for the Government on the steel industry. Indeed, I am working with the steel sector on its sector deal right now. The steel sector is dependent on the opportunities that come from companies such as BAE Systems being able to invest and thrive in the UK economy. The hon. Gentleman should commit to work with the steel companies’ customers, as we want to do, to ensure that they can offer the maximum market for the products of the vital and critical steel industry.

Luke Pollard: It has been a bad week for the defence industry. These job losses come on top of rumours that the Government are scrapping the Royal Navy’s amphibious ship capability, and the threat to the Royal Marines. Does the Minister agree that the Government are presiding over emerging sovereign defence capability gaps, and do something about it?

Claire Perry: I gently say that the hon. Gentleman should focus more on the facts and less on the rumours. We have committed to raising our national spending target to more than 2% of national income. We have undertaken strategic defence and security review programmes that have clearly set out a defence strategy for the future. We have invested in two decades-worth of shipbuilding contracts north of the border. I am always happy to discuss the facts. I suggest he puts down the muck sheets and focuses on the facts.

Julie Cooper: The Minister talks about seeing things in perspective, but the perspective is this: the loss of 750 jobs in Lancashire is absolutely devastating for individuals, families, communities and the industry itself. Will she not only work hard with BAE Systems to mitigate these losses, keep them to the lowest possible number and protect as many jobs as possible, but look to protect jobs in the supply chain in constituencies such as mine in Burnley, whose very success and existence relies on BAE Systems thriving?

Claire Perry: As I said, we are keen to work closely with the company as it goes through this process. The offer is there for the hon. Lady and others who have important companies in their constituencies to work together, speaking to workers and the unions to ensure that we minimise the number of job losses and maximise skills retention both in this company and in the supply chain.

Paul Sweeney: When I worked at BAE Systems, more than 1,700 of my colleagues across the British shipbuilding industry were made redundant in 2013. At the time, that was predicated on investment to create a world-class industry, but that investment is no longer happening. We see the same across these cuts. Every time it happens, a major plank of British industrial capability is lost, whether it is the ability to build tanks or carry out the final assembly of the F-35 aircraft. We cannot compete in shipbuilding internationally or in submarine manufacturing to the same extent that we could. Will the Government commit to reviewing how they finance capital infrastructure investment in defence and ensure that we are doing this in the best possible way?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman raises the point—I defer to his considerable knowledge of the company—that companies need to be competitive in order to thrive and export, and we are told that that is the reason for today’s announcement. But we are spending £60 billion over the next 10 years on shipbuilding in the UK. That is one of the biggest investments in shipbuilding that I can remember. We are doing what we need to do domestically but, equally, we need to support the export opportunities for these companies right across the world.

Emma Hardy: The latest announcement of the loss of 400 jobs in Brough will be devastating to communities such as Hull and East Riding. I am sorry, but the response so far reeks of complacency. It is not good enough to say that Siemens have created jobs in Hull so that workers from Brough can find jobs elsewhere. We want more jobs, not fewer. So here is a simple question for the Minister: will she choose to save jobs by bringing forward the order for Hawks for the Red Arrows, or will she choose to see 400 jobs go?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady should be incredibly proud of the fact that one of the highest rates of jobs creation has been in Yorkshire and the north-east. We have to support our industries, which we do through our procurement strategy and our support for exports. I was told that in the recent years to 2015, the county of Yorkshire created more jobs than the whole of France. We should be celebrating that success.

Chris Matheson: In order to be competitive, we have to retain the skills that it looks like we are going to lose, but things are going in the wrong direction. Has the Minister seen the estimates from Unite that suggest that 25% of our defence expenditure by 2020 will be in the United States alone? Are we not missing a defence industrial strategy that will stem that, so that we are paying people for skilled jobs, not to be unemployed?

Claire Perry: I am happy to look at the sums, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we have to ensure that we are buying the technology we need from the best places across the world when we are supporting our future defence capabilities. We are continuing to invest in and support this vital sector. He will be pleased to know that we are working closely with Unite and other unions where we are producing industrial strategy sector deals. The role and commitment of the workers that—particularly in the steel industry—has been vital in getting us to where we are cannot be underestimated. That is why the door is open for consultations and conversations with workers, the unions and colleagues from across the House.

Cat Smith: Some 750 of these potential job losses are in Lancashire, which rightly worries many of my constituents who work there. The loss of these highly skilled and well-paid jobs will have a devastating impact on the Lancashire economy. Will the Minister tell us more about what conversations she is having with the local enterprise partnership in Lancashire, what resources and support we can have in the area, and what conversations she is having with the Department for Work and Pensions about the potential job losses and the devastating impact on my constituents?

Claire Perry: We are right at the start of the process. Indeed, the company was not supposed to make the announcement until tomorrow, as I understand it. We want to have those conversations with the LEP and other employers with the aim of minimising the number of potential job reductions made by the company and maximising the redeployment of those people who have acquired such valuable skills over their time of work.

Helen Jones: Those of us with constituents who work in the supply chain for BAE Systems, as well as those who have constituents directly employed by the company, are disappointed to hear the Minister’s statement because she talked about managing decline. The Opposition want to see proper investment in the skills we need and in defence industrial strategy so that we do not have to buy technologies from abroad. We need the Government to bring forward orders in order to protect jobs. They can do that now. Why is the Minister not doing that?

Claire Perry: This is not about managing decline. We have a record number of people in work and have committed more than 2% of our national income to national defence. [Interruption.] And we have more than 2 million apprentices, I am told. The hon. Lady will understand that businesses and companies evolve and grow and invest in different technologies. The procurement of the F-35 fighter has brought forward jobs for BAE Systems. I appreciate her passion, but if she wants to stand on the platform of a party that wants to support exports in this vital sector, she needs to come across to the Government’s side of the House.

Liz McInnes: The Minister has made a great deal of what was said at the Labour party conference, but what impact will these job losses have on making this a country that works for everyone, and how will it help my constituents to live the British dream?

Claire Perry: I commend the hon. Lady for doing her homework. As the company goes through its normal business processes, we all have to stand by ready to do whatever we can through the consultation process to ensure that the minimum number of people lose their jobs and the maximum number, with those vital skills, find other opportunities. The whole Government stand by ready to do that. Looking ahead, I call that maximising the British dream.

Point of Order

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the Prime Minister’s statement, the Leader of the Opposition, quite properly and rightly, sat through the entirety of the exchanges, as is the custom of the House. It did not go unnoticed, however, that the official spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), left early. Given that we are about to have a couple more statements, could you rule on whether it is appropriate for official spokespeople on the Opposition Benches to stay for the entirety of the exchanges on a statement, rather than beetling out just after they have made their contribution?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The position is extremely clear—at least it has always been so—but I am happy to take this opportunity to reiterate it. If the representative of a party speaks for that party as a spokesperson, he or she remains in the Chamber for the remainder of the exchanges—no ifs, no buts. The only circumstances in which I would regard it as excusable to leave—and in those circumstances, the person would make a request—would be if they were suddenly indisposed. It is not acceptable for somebody to leave the Chamber because he or she has finished and thinks, “I have other commitments; I need to go somewhere else.”
I do not mind telling the hon. Gentleman that I was asked yesterday “would it be all right if” the Member left to attend to commitments elsewhere, and my answer was no. Let me say in terms that brook of no contradiction that I do not expect official spokespersons or their representatives to come to the Chair and seek to engage in protracted conversations or attempted negotiations on that matter. I say to the SNP Chief Whip in terms unmistakable that it is a rank discourtesy for a Front-Bench spokesperson to speak and then leave apparently on the grounds of being very busy, having many commitments, having a very full diary or having to be somewhere else. No, that is not acceptable.
As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said very fairly, the Leader of the Opposition sat in his place throughout the exchanges, as he always does and as his predecessors have always done, and that has always been the established practice in the House. If a Member has made commitments to be elsewhere that will cause him or her to have to leave early, the answer is that those commitments should not have been made and should be cancelled. If a Member thinks that he or she would like subsequently to be somewhere else, the answer is very simple: put someone else up to speak on the statement, but do not speak and then leave. Not only is it in defiance of parliamentary convention, but it is rude to other colleagues. I should not have to make that point in respect of a party leader. It is so blindingly obvious I should have thought that everybody would have grasped it in any case.
I think that that is pretty clear and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley.

RACE DISPARITY AUDIT

Damian Green: I rise—with some trepidation, Mr Speaker—to make a statement about the race disparity audit, which the Government are publishing today through a new website, Ethnicity Facts and Figures, and a summary report, which I have ordered to be placed in the Library of the House.
The audit was announced just over a year ago by the Prime Minister as part of her commitment to tackling injustices in society. This exercise has been unprecedented in scale, scope and transparency. It covers detailed data on around 130 different topics from 12 Departments. The first product of the audit is the website, which has been created to be used by all citizens. It has been developed through extensive engagement with members of the public from across the UK, public service workers, non-governmental organisations and academics. I hope that hon. Members will agree, once they have had the chance to examine it, that the website is clear and user-friendly. Each section of the website includes simple headlines and charts, and allows users to download all the underlying data.
Although the past few decades have witnessed great leaps forward in equality and opportunity in British society, the audit shows that there is much more still to do if we are to end racial injustice. In itself, that will sound to hon. Members like an unsurprising conclusion, but the audit adds a lot more clarity and depth to that single challenge. It tells us in which public services there are the largest disparities and whether those are increasing over time or diminishing, and about the influence of poverty and gender on the wider picture. For example, black people were over three times more likely than white people to be arrested and more than six times more likely to be stopped and searched.
Three issues demonstrate the added complexity of the data. First, there are significant differences in how ethnic minorities are doing in different parts of the country. For example, while employment rates are generally higher for white people than for ethnic minorities, there is a larger gap in the north than in the south. Also, if people are expecting a report that is relentlessly negative about the situation for ethnic minorities in Britain today, I am pleased to say that it is simply not the case that ethnic minorities universally have worse outcomes. For example, people of Indian and Pakistani origin have similar levels of home ownership to white people, although that is not true of other ethnic minorities.
Secondly, on some measures there are very significant differences between ethnic minority groups. Education attainment data show that there are disparities in primary school that increase in secondary school, with Asian pupils tending to perform well and white and black pupils doing less well, particularly those eligible for free school meals. Finally, on other measures, it is white British people who experience the worst outcomes, such as in relation to self-harm and suicide in custody, or smoking among teenagers.
In terms of what happens next, the data set out on the website present a huge challenge not just to Government but to business, public services and wider society. We hope that the website will not only contribute to a better  informed public debate about ethnicity in the UK, but support local managers of public services to ask how they compare to other services.
On behalf of the Government, I have committed to maintaining and extending the Ethnicity Facts and Figures website. More importantly, I commit that the Government will take action with partners to address the ethnic disparities highlighted by the audit. We have made a start through initiatives such as the action taken by the Department for Work and Pensions in 20 targeted hotspots. Measures in those areas will include mentoring schemes to help those in ethnic minorities into work and traineeships for 16 to 24-year-olds, offering English, maths and vocational training alongside work placements.
On the criminal justice system, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his recent report. I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Justice will be taking forward a number of the recommendations in his review. These will include developing performance indicators for prisons to assess the equality of outcomes for prisoners of all ethnicities, committing to publishing all criminal justice datasets held on ethnicity by default, and working to ensure that our prison workforce is more representative of the country as a whole. In addition, the Department for Education will carry out an external review to improve practice on exclusions. It will share best practice nationwide and focus on the experiences of the groups that are disproportionately likely to be excluded. The House can expect further announcements on future Government work to follow in the coming months.
The approach that the Government are taking is “explain or change”. When significant disparities between ethnic groups cannot be explained by wider factors, we will commit ourselves to working with partners to change them.
The race disparity audit provides an unprecedented degree of transparency in reflecting the way in which ethnicity affects the experiences of citizens. It is a resource that will tell us how well we are doing as a society in ensuring that all can thrive and prosper, and I commend it to the House.

Dawn Butler: I thank the First Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
There is value in putting all the data together in one portal, but what matters most is what the Government are going to do about the problems that have been identified. For some years, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust have been looking at some of the burning issues, including the impact of austerity on black and minority ethnic women in the United Kingdom.
The real uncomfortable truth is that the Prime Minister cannot pretend she did not know that there were in-built structural injustices before 2010, because she wrote to the then Prime Minister about “real risks” that
“women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately hit by cuts”.
Our Prime Minister, knowing full well the damage that would be caused by Conservative cuts, has done nothing but exacerbate the problems. Far from tackling burning injustices, she has added fuel to the fire. We need solutions and a sustained effort to tackle those burning injustices, because talking shops just will not cut it.  Mentoring schemes are good, but they are not nearly ambitious enough. The closure of Sure Start centres has contributed to the poor start of many young children, and the closure of Connexions, which was a valuable tool for young people, was also a mistake.
The Prime Minister has said that if these disparities cannot be explained they must be changed, so let me ask the Minister some questions. Will he explain or change the Government’s policy of rolling out universal credit, which has caused some people to lose their homes and has caused vulnerable people to plummet into debt? Will he explain or change their policy on the public sector workers’ pay cap, which has disproportionately affected women and people from diverse communities? Will he explain or change their policies on personal independence payments, which have resulted in the statement by a United Nations panel that the UK has failed to uphold disabled people’s rights? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like to hear this, but it is important if we are to tackle the burning injustices that exist in our country.
Will the Minister explain or change the Government’s policies on tuition fees, which have crippled the life chances of young people? Will he explain or change the delay in the increase in the minimum wage, which the Government have renamed the living wage? Will he explain or change the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the house-building programme, the Access to Work policy, or the Trade Union Act 2016? There are so many policies that the Government need to explain or change.
We cannot ignore the fact that the actions of this Government have contributed to the burning injustices in our country. They have failed to understand the value of equality impact assessments, which the last Prime Minister described as “red tape”. Britain is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to succeed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) says, “What are you going to do about it?” Let me tell him. Labour issued a manifesto to tackle problems of discrimination. Its policy proposals included the introduction of equal pay requirements for large employers; the launching of an inquiry into name-based discrimination; the implementation of the Parker review recommendations; the enhancement of the powers and functions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been subject to Government cuts; and the boosting of income through the introduction of a real living wage—to name just a few.
There are other possible solutions to the problem, some of which must come from the Minister’s own side. The Government should reintroduce race equality audits and impact assessments, independently assess the Treasury, introduce “blind” sentencing in the criminal justice system, and implement their responsibilities under the public sector equalities duty.
What we need is a Government who are not afraid to act on uncomfortable truths, and Labour is that Government in waiting. History has shown that positive change only happens under a Labour Government, and we are ready once again to deliver a fair and more equal society for the many and not the few.

Damian Green: I am puzzled by the disparity between the Labour party’s response to the audit and that of the stakeholders who actually work in the sector. I came to the House today from a roundtable at No. 10 that was chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by about  12 of the principal non-governmental organisations that have worked for many years to improve the lives of ethnic minority people in this country. They are universally positive about this, unlike the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that was not what they told her, but I have quotations from them here. Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote has said:
“The findings from the Race Disparity Audit present us with a real opportunity to make transformative change in tackling persistent race inequality”—
[Hon. Members: “What are the Government going to do?”] He actually went on to say:
“Yes, some findings make uncomfortable reading, but unless these things are laid bare we can’t begin to resolve them.”
After 13 years of a Labour Government trying to hide the facts, we now have a Government who are ready to expose them and to do something about them.
Jeremy Crook of the Black Training and Enterprise Group—apparently it has also been ignored by the Labour party—says:
“The data can support local communities to have conversations with local public bodies about ensuring that no ethnic group gets left behind in education or health or any other area of public life.”
The people who actually know what they are talking about welcome the audit, and welcome what the Government are doing. The people who do not are members of the Labour party who live in their own world.
The hon. Member for Brent Central appeared to take the general view that in all areas problems for people from ethnic minorities were getting worse. I appreciate that the website has been live for only about an hour, so she will not yet have had time to investigate all 130 datasets, but when she does, she will find a point that is much more nuanced than those that she has made. There are some problems, and some things are getting worse, but some things are getting better. The difference between the general employment rate and the rate among all ethnic minorities decreased from 15 to 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2016. Since 2004, employment rates have increased among all ethnic groups. The inactivity rate among Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, who have often had the worst unemployment rates, has fallen by 10%—[Interruption.]
I would hope that Labour Members, rather than laughing from the Front Bench, might welcome the fact that some of our most disadvantaged communities are doing better than they ever have before in this country. The Labour party seems to think that that is something to laugh about.
The hon. Lady referred to universities and tuition fees. I remind her that more disadvantaged people are applying for university places and going to university than ever before, and more people from black and minority ethnic communities are applying than ever before. Labour Members have a view of the world in which people are permanent victims, but that is not what this audit shows. Their lack of transparency, and their lack of ability to welcome a step by the Government that is welcomed by all experts in the field, reflects very badly on their party.

Maria Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and the Prime Minister for her commitment to tackling the injustice  that is race discrimination. When will the Government bring forward plans across Government to ensure that it is clear what every single Department is doing to tackle these inequities, and particularly to separate economic disadvantage from race discrimination, because at the moment the figures blur together?

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, because we of course need to determine the real causes of disadvantage, as I have said. Sometimes they are based on ethnicity, and sometimes on other factors. That is precisely why, in addition to the individual measures that I have announced today for three Government Departments, other Departments will be making policy proposals in the months and years ahead to address the various disadvantages, and they can now, for the first time, be based on publicly available facts and figures. That is the great advantage of the step forward that we have taken today, because we now have transparency. We will have much better evidence to ensure that the policies we bring forward to tackle disadvantage will be effective.

David Linden: I thank the First Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. None of this comes as a surprise to any of us. A lot of work has been done over the years, including by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Although we would welcome any new, user-friendly website, it really should not have been the centrepiece of today’s statement. I very much hope that the Government will be able to take effective and robust action. Given that Departments are carrying out their own pilots in the reviews, it is important that we have a holistic, multifaceted and co-ordinated response. Therefore, when will the Government come to the Chamber with a statement setting out how Departments will go forward with a joint solution for this problem?

Damian Green: That question is slightly similar to the previous one I answered from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). When the hon. Gentleman reads the audit, he will find that, rather than having a one-size-fits-all solution, it is precisely the value of the data we now have that will enable us to take specific action in a number of different areas.

Emily Thornberry: When?

Damian Green: I have announced some of the action today. I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary was not listening to the statement I made all of five minutes ago, when I announced three separate pieces of action. There will be action from other Government Departments as we develop the policy response to the evidence.
Let me make one final point to the Scottish National party’s spokesman. I would encourage him to encourage his colleagues in the Scottish Government to take part in this process, because so far we have found it quite difficult to get the equivalent information for some areas in Scotland that are completely devolved. Facts and figures on reserved matters in Scotland, where they are available to the UK Government, are included in  the audit, but at the moment there are no devolved facts and figures, and I genuinely think that it would help people in Scotland if those could be added to the audit figures.

Philip Davies: The review by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did not actually include much hard evidence of discrimination. For example, despite setting out with the assumption that black people are more likely to be found guilty by juries, it concluded:
“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all-white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants.”
Will the Minister therefore ensure that success stories are also highlighted, that any actions taken are based on evidence, and evidence alone, and that we do not have solutions looking for problems?

Damian Green: I am delighted to have the opportunity to agree entirely with my hon. Friend—that might be regarded as a rare treat. He is exactly right; the report by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was very fair in pointing out the great successes in the criminal justice system as well as the problems, some of the answers to which I have announced today, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will follow up on those. Across the board in this area there are indeed some successes, as I set out in response to the Opposition spokesperson. In some areas there are clearly endemic problems that have been going on for a long time, and action needs to be taken by society across the board—by central and local government, by businesses and by arm’s length bodies. We are not desperately searching for problems for our solutions. We will bring forward solutions only for those problems that we know exist.

Afzal Khan: I thank the First Secretary of State for the information that he has given the House today about the audit, but it does not answer the probing questions that the data throw up. Why are ethnic minorities still disadvantaged in access to public services, what are the Government going to do about it now that the audit has revealed the extent of the problem, and why have they left out religious discrimination, such as that against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and others?

Damian Green: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s last question is that it is a matter of what we record in our official information. When he looks at the audit, he will see that all the data sets contain a different level of detail. The question of religious discrimination simply cannot be included in an audit of this type, because we have never collected that kind of information. For example, we do not necessarily ask someone what their religion is when they go to the jobcentre, and I suspect that many people would find being asked for too much information intrusive, so we have to work with the material we have. With regard to disadvantage, he will have heard me announce the three Departments’ policy responses today—there are others that I have not announced, from the Home Office and others. He can rest assured that where the audit identifies problems, central and local government will respond to them across the board.

Shailesh Vara: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on undertaking this broad-ranging audit, which is long overdue. We know what the problem is, and we know what needs to be done to address it. However, given the huge scope of the audit, will the First Secretary of State inform the House what is proposed to ensure that there is consistency and a high level of monitoring across the huge breadth of areas covered?

Damian Green: That is a very good point. There are clearly different problems in different areas, which is precisely why, in addition to individual actions by Departments, there is an inter-ministerial group, which will allow every Department to find out what the others are doing and ensure that it is responding as it should to the individual problems assessed in their area. Of course, the audit is not a one-off event, because the figures will be added to continually so that new policy responses can be made to new problems as they emerge. It will be a living document.

Jo Swinson: Let us give credit where it is due, because this data set is important. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the transparency that will help to shine a light on the structural racism that still exists in UK society. May I offer the First Secretary of State some advice based on painful experience? The Conservative side of the coalition Government spent five years insisting that we try to get employers to do gender pay gap reporting on a voluntary basis, until my Lib Dem colleagues and I finally won the battle for mandatory reporting in March 2015. We must not now waste five years in the same way, so will he now commit to introducing mandatory race pay gap reporting?

Damian Green: As the hon. Lady will know from her time in government—it was a pleasure to serve with her—we are unlikely at this stage to leap to such long-term commitments on the basis of information that we have only just gathered. However, she makes a fair point. The underlying point is that this is an issue not only for central Government, but for the private sector. I know that many private sector organisations, some of which were represented at the roundtable event held at Downing Street this morning, are anxious to follow up a lot of the work on trying to reduce the gender pay gap and to address pay gaps among people from different ethnic backgrounds as well.

Rehman Chishti: I applaud the Government’s efforts, because this is the first such audit to be carried out. As chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Pakistan and on communities engagement, I have consistently raised with the previous and current Prime Ministers the matter of the British Pakistani community falling behind on educational attainment, employment and wages. What will the Government’s strategy be to address that? Will there be effective community engagement so that the answers come from the bottom up?

Damian Green: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of campaigning in this area. The employment response from the Department for Work and Pensions will be targeted at specific areas, and 20 hotspots where the most difference can be made  will be identified. I obviously cannot commit today to saying what those 20 will be, but I would be surprised if the impact was not deliberately designed to help the areas in which those communities tend to live, where the unemployment rate is not as good as it is on average.

Fiona Onasanya: I am slightly confused, so will the Government confirm something for me? Lots of information has been provided, but some of the data collated were already in place and the Government have not specifically told us what they are going to do about that data. A couple of problems have been identified, but talking about mentoring schemes is not the sole answer to those problems.

Damian Green: We have identified 130 different data sets, and coming up with 130 different policy responses in one statement might be a bit much. More seriously, much of the information is new—20 of the data sets are completely new—and it seems sensible to consider the evidence, work out what the best policy response is and then do the policy, not the other way around, which is how the Labour party seems to want to do things.

Chris Bryant: What a load of sententious, vacuous guff. Honestly, the Secretary of State should be ashamed. Has he just taken over the department for circumlocution and the office of how not to do anything while pretending to do something? The honest truth is that unless serious analytical work is done to check whether the statistics are a matter of correlation or causation, there is no value to this work whatsoever. Mrs Thatcher fell at the same time as Marathons were changed to Snickers, but I am not aware that there was any causal relationship between the two.

Damian Green: Behind the hon. Gentleman’s characteristic bombast is a serious point. He says that correlation is not the same as causation, so would he like to have a word with his Front-Bench team, who are demanding that all the policy responses should come now before we have done the analysis that he sensibly asks for? We are doing things the sensible way. Not only do his Front-Bench team have no polices, they appear to want policies before they have looked at the evidence. That would be the worst way to go about things. I appreciate that, in all sincerity, he believes that his Front-Bench team are as bad as I believe they are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The House is in a very excitable condition. I gently point out to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that she would wish to be viewed across the country and around the globe as an aspiring stateswoman, and I think her demeanour ought to reflect her ambition.

Maria Caulfield: I am sorry that the shadow Front-Bench team find this issue so amusing. As someone who grew up in a deprived working class area—more girls in my school went to prison than to university—I take this issue very seriously. While I welcome the audit, the fact that it focuses on race, not the common issues that all communities face of broken families, poverty and getting into work, means that it  misses some things. I point the Secretary of State in the direction of “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which has been produced by Conservative Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and addresses some of those issues in more detail.

Damian Green: I know the valuable document to which my hon. Friend refers. I recommend that she read the audit carefully, because she will find that it reveals the huge differences between areas that look similar demographically or in their ethnic makeup. Anyone who reads the findings carefully and sensibly will realise that some policy prescriptions may not be based on ethnicity and may need to be based on the other factors she mentioned. The sensible way for any Government to proceed—certainly the way that this Government will proceed—will be to look at the evidence and then devise the policy.

Preet Kaur Gill: What other reports on race have been incorporated into the race audit data? Why have Sikhs, who are recognised as a separate ethnic group in legislation, been excluded from the audit? Will he put that right by ensuring that Sikhs are not further discriminated against and that the 2021 census will include a Sikh ethnic tick box?

Damian Green: I can only reply to the hon. Lady with what I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). Religion is not routinely collected in many of the 130 data sets, so it would be impossible to include. It is not a question of excluding any particular group. Many of the data sets have existed for decades, and we as a society have to decide over time how much personal information we want to collect and publish on every individual in this country. It is sometimes helpful to collect such information, because it helps public policy making, but people sometimes regard it as intrusive. Our view on that may change over time, and we can always have discussions in this House about what level of personal information we want to give to Governments and then have Governments publish, so that might be a way to aid public policy making, and I am happy to discuss that with her.

Huw Merriman: Having attended a failing school in your constituency, Mr Speaker —albeit before your time—and then having spent five years in a formerly failing school in west London, I have a real passion for what can be achieved through education if we have these race disparity audits. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to transform a west London school’s five A to C GCSE grade rate from 9% to 60%. In addition to sharing my distaste for the appalling behaviour of the Opposition, I ask Ministers to take the data and learn about the best practice in institutions so that it can be rolled out and applied nationally.

Damian Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. Action that is taken at a local level—perhaps in an individual school—can be transformative for the lives of thousands of people. The audit will enable us to identify the areas with problems in a more fine-grain way than ever before, so that we can deal with those problems, whether they relate to education, employment and training or policing, in the areas where  that action can have most effect. That will be how we can make the most beneficial difference to most people’s lives.

Emma Little Pengelly: I thank the First Secretary of State for his statement. For some considerable time, black and white British boys in receipt of free school meals have had some of the lowest levels of educational achievement across the United Kingdom, and that is also the case in Northern Ireland. I welcome this initiative, but the data will be of value only if the analysis is mainstreamed into policy making in Departments. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that that happens?

Damian Green: Much good work has been done in Northern Ireland in that field, and we will continue to spread best practice and learn from where we have had successes. Making that part of mainstream policy making is one of way of doing that. The hon. Lady mentioned educational attainment, and it will be interesting to see the evidence from free schools in the years ahead. I suspect that they will be shown to do particularly well by pupils with various forms of disadvantage, but we will develop the evidence over time and we will base our policy on evidence—[Interruption.] I can tell from the noise level that the Labour party has already come to a view about free schools without any evidence. That is typical of why their policy making is always so bad—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Calm. My advice in particular is tendered for the benefit of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Chris Bryant: I am very quiet.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman witters from a sedentary position that he is very quiet. I think the answer to that is that it is all relative.

Rushanara Ali: May I remind the First Secretary of State that it was the previous Labour Government who led an inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder and, following that, introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Equalities Act 2010, which require monitoring, and that this Government have neglected much of that? I welcome this audit, but ask the Minister please, for the love of God, to focus on the structural inequalities—that is, child poverty, which will hit 4 million by 2020, and the cuts to further education and to education maintenance allowances. Those interventions and cuts to those provisions are making it worse for ethnic minorities and white working-class communities. If the Government are serious, we need to stop just doing research and evidence gathering. That is important, but it is not good enough if it is not followed by action.

Damian Green: The hon. Lady is right that one should get the evidence and then take action. I discover from those on her Front Bench that they prefer to take action blind without looking at the evidence first. One fact that we can jointly celebrate is that among the places where educational attainment has gone up significantly for all groups is her area. That shows that there can be improvements in areas that people once wrote off, which should never happen in any part of this country. I can tell the hon. Lady that this Government will not allow that to happen.

Sarah Champion: This morning the Communities and Local Government Secretary highlighted that some Pakistani and Bangladeshi women do not have English. May I suggest that one reason for that is that the Government have cut English for speakers of other languages funding by 60%? Will the Minister commit to change that and reverse the cuts so that everybody can reach their potential?

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was quite right to point out that one of the biggest things holding people back is their not being allowed to speak the language of the country. That is why we spent £100 million last year on teaching English to ensure that more people than ever before can have access to it and play a full role in mainstream society.

Marsha de Cordova: In light of the audit today, will the Government commit to implementing their statutory equality impact assessment on some of their policies and, more specifically, on some social security policies, such as universal credit and the personal independence payment?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that every policy has the equality impact assessment applied to it.

Tony Lloyd: The First Secretary will recognise that disparity effectively begins at birth, and one thing we do know is that in Greater Manchester, for example, four in 10 children are not ready for school when they go there. In a town such as Rochdale, that rises to a considerably higher figure among the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities and in the poor white community. Will the report make any real financial difference to investment in that early years education?

Damian Green: I have not had a chance to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House; the last time I met him he was a police and crime commissioner, and PCCs have a key role to play in making this audit practical. I suggest he looks at it, because one fascinating thing I found when I looked at the audit before it was publicly available is the precise level of analysis that can be done of individual communities. He will be able to see that certain similar communities require different solutions. Different problems are at different levels in neighbouring towns that otherwise look very similar. I have looked at a lot of the towns in the north-west in and around Manchester and I can only suggest that he has a look at the evidence. He will find that there will be different policy prescriptions for what would otherwise be similar towns.

Layla Moran: I welcome the focus in the audit on educational attainment and many Members have already spoken about the subject. That shows how stubbornly the gap persists between pupil premium children and others. If the Government are serious about addressing this burning injustice, should they not allocate the money to schools to tackle the problem rather than forcing them to make damaging cuts, which the poorest families are least able to mitigate?

Damian Green: I say to the hon. Lady that the schools budget is of course protected and, secondly, that the simple prescription that more money means better public policy was exploded many years ago. She can see that through the different performances of schools in different areas and the differences between individual schools. There is certainly a problem in raising educational attainment and that is why I am very proud that over the past seven years we have had 1.8 million more children attending good or excellent schools than we had in 2010.

Lucy Powell: Like others, I welcome this audit, but I am not sure that we needed an audit to tell us of the deep rooted injustices and discriminations in many of our institutions. I have a specific question about charges brought under joint enterprise. Is the Minister aware of research from Manchester Metropolitan University that found huge disparities in the number of people in prison under joint enterprise and how those prosecutions are brought?
More than three quarters of those in prison for joint enterprise found that gang narrative and neighbourhood narrative were used in their prosecution if they were from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, compared with less than 40% for those from white backgrounds. I had a recent case in Moss Side that found exactly that: the young black men who were facing these charges found that they relied heavily on a neighbourhood narrative about Moss Side. It is no wonder that people from places such as Moss Side feel that the criminal justice system works against them, not for them. What will the Minister do about it?

Damian Green: I was not aware of that report, but it is clearly centrally important to the sort of evidence that the audit will produce. The hon. Lady will be able to see from the audit at a local level whether the criminal justice system is working in a discriminatory way. I will speak to the Lord Chancellor and the Prisons Minister about the specific points that she raises.

Clive Betts: Let me turn to the issue of evidence collection as regards schools. Following the Macpherson report, there was a requirement that all schools had to report racially motivated incidents in school to their local authority. In 2010, that requirement was dropped, so there is now no information coming from academies or free schools, no local statistics and no national statistics on racist incidents in schools. Today, the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that the figures on exclusions probably under-represent the true position—the figure could be five times as high—mainly because academies are dressing up exclusions under other names. Is it not about time that the Government revisited these issues and gave proper powers and oversight to local authorities so that we can get a true understanding of what is happening in both these areas.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman has great expertise in the area of local Government and I am happy to tell him that one policy change that has already come about as a result of the audit is an external review of exclusions to deal with precisely the sort of issue that he has just raised.

Kate Green: Last year, at Cabinet Office questions on 2 November the then Cabinet Office Minister, Ben Gummer, told me that in preparing this audit the Government would apply the 2011 census classifications, which, for example, enable us to identify Gypsies and Travellers in the statistics. I note from the report that it is not yet the case that all Departments are adopting the 2011 census classifications. Will the First Secretary tell us today whether the intention is to require Departments as well as other Government agencies and bodies to apply those definitions?

Damian Green: We are certainly working towards that. Some of the problem is that the information in the audit is not all collected by central Government. The audit contains quite a lot of information concerning Travellers, and some of the educational attainment information revealed for Traveller children, in particular, is especially worrying. I take the hon. Lady’s point and we are seeking, as I have said in answer to other questions, to be as transparent as possible with the information we can collect. We will continue to move down that road.

Andrew Slaughter: There is quite a lot of evidence in the audit that Gypsies and Travellers are one of the most discriminated against disadvantaged groups. I sat through and took part in last night’s debate, during which a succession of the First Secretary’s colleagues simply wanted to talk about planning enforcement matters. If he actually wants this audit to have an effect, perhaps he could start by explaining things to his colleagues and changing their attitudes to some of these issues.

Damian Green: I am not sure there was a question in that, but I take what the hon. Gentleman said in the spirit in which I know he meant it. His remarks will have been heard.

Richard Burden: Will the First Secretary address in a bit more detail the serious issue, highlighted by the audit, of educational underachievement among white working-class children? In particular, will he address the fact that only 32% of white children on free school meals reach their expected level of attainment at key stage 2 and that white working-class children from poorer backgrounds are the least likely to go to university? Are we not dealing with a cycle of deprivation that spans the generations? The challenge is not, as he said it is, to “explain or change”—it is to explain and change. May I put it to him that tackling those cycles of deprivation is not helped—rather, it is the reverse—by cuts to Sure Start and early years provision?

Damian Green: In that case, I think many of us would agree on the “explanation”. At the root of a lot of the educational reforms introduced in recent years is improving the attainment in schools containing the sorts of pupils the hon. Gentleman referred to, so that they get a fair chance in life. That is what the whole of this is about and we will continue that approach. I have already said that we have far more children going to good or excellent schools than was the case five years ago and we have more children from disadvantaged background going to university than ever before, but there is always more to be done in this area. This audit gives us some of the tools to enable us to do it in a more precise way. That will be the long-term benefit of this audit.

Bombardier

Greg Clark: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Bombardier, updating the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against that company. The case has serious implications for the workers at Bombardier Aerostructures & Engineering Services—Short Brothers—in Belfast, where the wings for the C Series aircraft are manufactured.
Following a complaint by Boeing, the US Department of Commerce has made two provisional determinations in the case, calculating duties of 220% in relation to alleged subsidies for Bombardier and of nearly 80% in relation to alleged mis-selling by Bombardier into the US market. These initial determinations are bitterly disappointing, but they are only the first step in the process: a final ruling in the investigation is due in February and would be subject to further appeal, were this to be upheld. This Government have been working tirelessly to bring the case to a satisfactory resolution and we will continue to do so.
In filing the petition, Boeing asserted three claims: first, that without Canadian and UK Government subsidies Bombardier would have been unable to develop the C Series; secondly, that Bombardier is selling at or below production cost its C Series aircraft in the US; and thirdly, as a result, that this is causing the threat of imminent material injury to the US domestic aerospace industry. This action followed Bombardier securing an order from Delta Airlines for 75 aircraft.
The Boeing petition makes allegations about funding support from the Canadian federal Government and the Government of the Province of Quebec for the C Series. It also alleges that the UK’s provision of £113 million of repayable launch investment funding, committed to Bombardier Short Brothers in 2009 to support the development of the composite wings, contravened trade rules. We strongly and robustly refute that allegation.
I want to make the Government’s position very clear: we consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified and unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. Boeing does not manufacture a competing aircraft, so although Boeing claims harm in respect of the Delta aircraft order, it actually has no product in the 100 to 125-seat sector. Furthermore, this system of launch investment for the development of new aircraft reflects that of all major commercial aircraft programmes in their early years, including the Boeing 787. We refute entirely any suggestion that our support contravenes international rules.
The Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 excellent skilled workers, with almost a quarter of those working on the C Series. It also supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs across the UK, as well as supporting nearly 23,000 workers in the United States of America, where 53% of the content of the C Series is produced by US-based companies. We will continue to work tirelessly to safeguard jobs, innovation and livelihoods in Northern Ireland.
From the outset, as is obvious, this has been a dispute that joins Canada and the UK, and we have been assiduous in working closely with the Government of  Canada in our response. The Prime Minister has discussed the case with Prime Minister Trudeau, and I have been in regular contact with Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, to co-ordinate our response and actions. We have had intensive engagement from across government at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has discussed the matter twice with President Trump, stressing the crucial importance of Bombardier’s operations in Belfast and asking the US Government to do all they can to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. My Cabinet colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Trade Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, and I have reinforced our serious concerns with, among others, the US Secretary of Commerce, the US Secretary of State, the US Treasury Secretary, the US Trade Representative and other members of the Administration, as well as, on this side of the Atlantic, the EU Trade Commissioner. My colleague the Minister for Energy and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has met Boeing International’s president, and I travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact of these actions on the future relationship with the United Kingdom.
I am grateful for the consistent and indefatigable efforts of the constituency Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and indeed the whole community in Northern Ireland who are united in opposition to this action. We will continue vigorously and robustly to defend UK interests in support of Bombardier, its workforce in Belfast and those in its UK supply chain. We will continue to work jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government. We will work closely with Bombardier, its workforce and its trade unions, and we will do everything we can to bring about a credible, early resolution of this totally unjustified case. As I said, the initial determinations are the first step in the process, but we completely understand the worry and uncertainty facing the workforce, which means that the earlier this issue can be resolved, the better. To that end, I expect to have further discussions with Boeing, Bombardier, the Canadian Government and the US Government in the days ahead. The House should be aware that neither this Government nor our counterpart in Canada will rest until this groundless action is ended. I commend this statement to the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Following a complaint by Boeing, on 26 September the US Department of Commerce ruled that Bombardier had benefited from state subsidies and imposed a 219% tariff, and on 6 October it found engagement in below-cost selling and imposed an additional tariff of 80%. This decision has catastrophic ramifications for Bombardier, the 4,000 staff it employs directly in Northern Ireland and the 20,000 staff employed throughout the UK in supply chains. Not only does this jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands, but the Northern Irish economy also faces a serious threat, as Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of manufacturing output, so the danger to jobs, the future of Bombardier and the Northern Irish economy because of these decisions in the US is very real.
Sadly, also very real has been the apparent inaction of the Government thus far. The Opposition have repeatedly sought information from them, but we have so far been disappointed by the response—so today I will try again. First, what was the specific content of, and what commitments were made during, the Prime Minister’s and other Cabinet members’ conversations with the US Administration and indeed Boeing?
Secondly, have the Government had any discussions at all with the European Commission, specifically with the Directorates-General for Trade and for Competition, about the support that it might be able to provide? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State have any plans to target all relevant US legislators to lobby the US Administration, including the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and those with constituency interests in Bombardier and its wider supply chain?
Given the devastating impact on the Northern Irish economy and on the already fragile Northern Irish peace settlement, what attempts has the Secretary of State made to urge the Irish Government to apply greater political pressure on the Irish caucus on the Hill to highlight the fact that this is not simply a US-Canada dispute, as the Secretary of State for International Trade has sadly already suggested? Fourthly, what attempts have the Government made thus far to provide evidence to the US independent Trade Commission that Boeing did not compete for the Delta contract and does not manufacture a comparable model to the C Series that would have matched the contract specification?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that this whole affair demonstrates the very real security risk of military reliance on one foreign supplier? Ministry of Defence contracts with Boeing total £4.5 billion, but is it correct, as reports suggest, that the Defence Secretary is reluctant to use that leverage because of our dependency on the company? Worse still, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have been somewhat quiet on the issue. Are they afraid of being exposed in Northern Ireland for their failure to protect jobs, or are they so keen to score a sweetheart trade deal with the US that they simply want to wash their hands of this matter? Clearly, politics is being put ahead of the welfare of workers in Northern Ireland. I eagerly await the Secretary of State’s response to my questions, but I fear that Bombardier and everyone who depends on the firm are considered by this Conservative Government to be a fair price to pay for a post-Brexit trade deal with President Trump.

Greg Clark: I am disappointed with the hon. Lady’s response. If anyone is putting politics ahead of the welfare of workers, the evidence was there. She asked some reasonable questions, which have reasonable answers. I said in my statement that the European Commission had been engaged. Commissioner Malmström has been consulted, as have other member states across the European Union. As for the Irish Government, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, has been engaged as well. On the issue of submitting evidence to the Trade Commission in the United States, that has indeed been provided, and, in response to the initial determination, further information will be provided to make it clear that there are no grounds for demonstrating detriment to Boeing, as this aircraft does not compete with Boeing. That has been addressed in clear terms.
Engagement across Government, the Province of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland has been consistent and unrelenting right from the beginning. I will not detail all the meetings that have been held and the calls that have been made, but they will continue—no stone will be left unturned. We have had 24 calls or meetings with the US Administration, 12 with Boeing executives, and 20 with the Government of Canada. Every day during this process, we have been engaged in getting rid of this unjustified complaint. I would welcome the support of the whole House in this endeavour. I wish to put on record my gratitude to the trade unions, which have played a very constructive role. When it comes to making the case for this action being totally unjustified, I would like to think that this House is completely united not only in looking to the importance of the Bombardier presence in Belfast, but in underlining our total determination to throw out and see dismissed this unjustified action.

Theresa Villiers: Does the Secretary of State agree that successive UK Governments have always been rigorous in compliance with their international legal obligations on state aid, and that, therefore, these punitive tariffs that are proposed are both irrational and unjustified and should be removed?

Greg Clark: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As she will remember, we do have a very rigorous system for scrutinising state aid, which is why we are totally confident that the system of launch aid that we have applied is compliant with all the international rules. The allegation does not have merit, and I expect to see it thrown out.

John McNally: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
The Scottish National party regrets the preliminary ruling by the US Department of Commerce that could put these highly skilled jobs at risk in Northern Ireland, and we sincerely hope that the UK Government are doing all that they possibly can to engage with Bombardier and the trade unions to ensure that the future of all employees is as secure as possible.
These rulings clearly show that no one will be spared Trump’s protectionist agenda of “America first”, with jobs in the UK and Canada—some of the US’s closest allies—being put at risk as a result of the punitive tariffs being imposed on Bombardier.
I am afraid that the Tory Government have been cosying up to Trump with the false illusion—or delusion—that this will help them sign a trade deal with the US after Brexit, without realising that Trump’s Administration will not give in to any demands that may give a competitive edge to the UK over the US.
Leaving the EU means that we will lose leverage in trade negotiations as we will no longer be part of the world’s largest single market of some 500 million people, and we will lose the expertise that the EU has built up over the past 40 years negotiating on our behalf.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the best way to promote trade and to create jobs across the UK is by maintaining our membership of the single market and the customs union?

Greg Clark: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports our opposition to the proposed sanctions. If he has studied the form in these matters, he will know that the initial determination was not entirely unexpected by any of the parties, which was attested to by the Government of Canada. We have an outstanding case that there is no detriment to Bombardier, which we expect to prove along with the fact that the launch aid has been compliant. On our relationship with the European Union, he will observe that this dispute has taken place while we are a member of that Union. That justifies our commitment not just with the European Union but globally to seek a rigorous system of free trade in which there is a fair assessment of complaints rather than these punitive and unjustified tariffs.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and congratulate him on the work that he is carrying out in this matter. It is of course extremely important to Northern Ireland that we get this right and protect the jobs and the industry in the Province. May I also ask him if he will—I am sure that he will—seek to strike a balance here? Boeing is a very important customer to many companies in this country, including some in my own constituency, which is very heavily dependent on aerospace.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why many of us in this House are so bitterly disappointed with the actions of Boeing. The company has been the beneficiary of important defence contracts. As many Members know, it is opening an important factory in Sheffield—its first in Europe. A long-term industrial relationship with this country, which it clearly seeks, entails obligations. Those obligations are to treat reasonably and fairly those important parts of our economy that are being attacked without justification.

Gavin Robinson: In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I just reflect on the fact that this Northern Ireland trade dispute is unprecedented in terms of the political engagement it has had from our Government? As the representative for east Belfast, I greatly appreciate not only the work thus far but the presence today of the Northern Ireland Secretary; the Business Secretary; the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington); the defence procurement Minister; the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry); and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, whose presence shows just how much support there is politically for us in Northern Ireland, and I greatly appreciate it.
I was, however, bitterly disappointed by the comments last week by the Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross. His comments were not only belligerent, but showed—while the process continues—the political support at this early stage for Boeing in its dispute. There is deep concern about the political overtures tied up with this ongoing issue. May I ask the Secretary of State, having engaged thus far, and seeing that what happened was the inevitable outcome of that engagement, how long it will be until we can assuage the concerns of those in Belfast and Canada that there are meaningful and genuine consequences in store should there not be an adequate and suitable resolution to this case?

Greg Clark: I repeat my thanks and admiration for the work of the hon. Gentleman, who is standing up for his constituents with vigour and strength. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute, too, to the leader of the DUP, and indeed to community leaders across Northern Ireland, for the united response that they have made. We are disappointed not only with the response, in terms of the proposed tariffs, but with some of the words that have been used around this. It seems to me that the case is overwhelming: we can demonstrate that any aid that has been given is not only completely in line with international norms, but consistent with the type of assistance that Boeing has had over time. We expect to be able to demonstrate that in a convincing way.
It also seems to me impossible to establish detriment to Boeing, given that it does not have a competitor aircraft. The process of the hearings is that, following the initial determination, there is a further call for evidence, and the evidence that we, completely hand in hand with the Canadians, will present will demonstrate that. We look to the US to make sure that this is a rigorous process and is not politically influenced.
We have been very clear. The Defence Secretary, on a visit to Northern Ireland, was very clear, as I have been, that this is not the behaviour we expect from a trusted partner, and could have implications for the future relationship between Boeing and the United Kingdom.

Anna Soubry: I had the great pleasure of going to the wings factory in Belfast, and I pay handsome tribute not just to the 4,000 workers there but to Bombardier in general and to the C series—it is a beautiful and exceptionally fine aeroplane, and we wish it great success. I also thank the Secretary of State and all his colleagues in the Government for the fine work they are doing, but does he share my concern that this decision, which we all hope will be overturned, marks a shift towards a more protectionist policy by the United States Government? Does he agree that that does not bode well, especially as we leave the EU, if we do not get a proper deal with the European Union?

Greg Clark: In my view, it underlines the importance of securing free trade not just with the European Union but around the world. The essence of a free trade agreement is that we have proper protections and dispute resolution mechanisms on which we can rely, so this issue underlines the importance of continuing free trade. As I say, it is not unusual in the aerospace sector for complaints to be made in one forum or another. I think all parties were expecting the initial determination to be as it was, and said as much. In terms of our work—we will not give up on this—we will fight to secure the legitimate future of this very important part of our aerospace sector, and we will do whatever it takes to do that.

Rachel Reeves: I join other hon. Members in saying that I hope this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland who works for Bombardier or in the supply chain. May I just pick up on a couple of points the Secretary of State made in his statement? First, he said that the Prime Minister had discussed the matter twice with President Trump to ask the US Government to do all they could to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. While we welcome those sentiments, is the  dispute not, in the end, with the US Government rather than Boeing, because it is up to the US Government, not Boeing, to impose sanctions? I hope the Prime Minister is also making that clear, and I just wanted some clarification on that point.
Secondly, the Secretary of State said he had
“travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact”
on our future relationship with the company. Can he say a little more about what he has said to Boeing about that future relationship, which I am sure Boeing values, with our Government?

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the questions from the Chairman of the Select Committee. In terms of the process, only Boeing can withdraw the complaint. There is an administrative requirement on the part of the Department of Commerce to determine, initially, a complaint, hence the desire—and I think it is highly desirable—that Boeing withdraw this complaint. If it will not—and, so far, it has not—it must be determined in a completely fair and objective way. If it is, it will have no merit, and will be thrown out. Both are therefore important, but it would be in the interests of everyone in the workforce and in the country that the complaint be withdrawn so that this uncertainty can be taken away.
In terms of the points that I put to Dennis Muilenburg, who is the chief executive of Boeing, we were very clear that Boeing has a reputation in this country that was beginning to grow in a positive way through the investment in Sheffield and elsewhere, and to jeopardise that reputation and relationship by doing something that is completely unjustified is something that I do not regard as in the strategic interests of Boeing, and I said that very explicitly in terms.

Mims Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for his balanced comments this afternoon. Our airports and our aerospace sector really matter to many communities represented across this House in terms of local jobs and prosperity, and particularly to Southampton in my constituency, which is No. 1 in Europe and No. 2 in the world. What estimates has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for growth in this sector, despite this mighty challenges?

Greg Clark: I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question, because, as the whole House knows, the aerospace sector in this country is one of our proudest success stories. It is growing. It is a huge source of exports—over 90% of the product of our aerospace sector is exported. Productivity growth, which is much debated in the House at the moment, is six times the rate in the economy as a whole. A quarter of a million very highly paid jobs are in aerospace, and we are absolutely determined—those colleagues who are familiar with our industrial strategy will see this in advanced manufacturing and in aerospace in particular—to build on those strengths and advance them. That is why the Boeing investment in Sheffield was welcomed, but to see that relationship jeopardised by this complaint is a huge setback and a bitter disappointment.

Angus MacNeil: I welcome the Secretary of State’s condemnation. What has happened is condemned not just in Northern Ireland,  but across these islands, including by the Irish Government, as the Secretary of State said. I hope Bombardier will accept my invitation, as Chair of the International Trade Committee, to help combat this. However, on the wider issue—the World Trade Organisation aspects—is it not concerning that disputes outside the EU, which might be a WTO issue, and where the efficient European Court of Justice will not, and cannot be, used in a post-Brexit situation, the UK may see itself picked off by friend and foe all the more frequently in the future? Surely it has to be a concern to the Secretary of State that interactions with more states will be at WTO level by definition if the UK has changed status.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. The more we can be absolutely clear that the whole United Kingdom, all parties and both sides of the House share this view that the complaint should be withdrawn and the dispute settled, the better, and that has been emphatically the case here. Again, I make the point that it is clearly in all our interests to have free trade. In a sector where 90% of products are exported, that is obviously the case. But that trade needs to happen in a way that gives us confidence that disputes, which will happen from time to time, are resolved in a fair and objective way. We play by the rules—we always will—and all we want is a system that respects that. We are confident that we will gain from that scrutiny.

Maria Caulfield: Will the Government consider stepping in to support the workers in Northern Ireland who are affected by Boeing’s decision in the same way as they stepped in to support the workers during the Tata Steel dispute?

Greg Clark: We will of course always be behind the workers in every part of the country, but my determination is not only to save those jobs in Northern Ireland but to see the number of jobs increase and the company prosper and grow. As has been said, the C Series is gaining orders—it is an aircraft that fills an important position in the market. I would like to see the Belfast success story continue to grow in the years ahead.

Tom Brake: This situation is a tragedy for Northern Ireland and for Bombardier, and particularly for Northern Ireland industry, which, as I know from when I visited last week, is clearly reeling from the impact of Brexit and the concerns about our leaving the customs union. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, but I wish to press the Secretary of State on the punitive tariffs. What does he think such tariffs imply for the prospects of a beneficial future UK-US trade deal? It is true that this is all happening while we are in the EU, but does he think we will be more or less vulnerable to this sort of bullying in future if we are in or out of the EU?

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman describes this as a tragedy; I am absolutely determined that these jobs will be saved, and I never give up. I am determined that this will not be a tragedy; indeed, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), I am determined that Bombardier will go from strength to strength. On future free trade agreements, I repeat my earlier point: we want free trade agreements that provide for a rigorous dispute resolution mechanism on which  we can rely. That is something we would hope to negotiate with the US. The credibility and rigour of that process is essential to our agreeing it.

Huw Merriman: Many of my constituents, like those of the Secretary of State, work in Gatwick, and I am sure they would send their solidarity to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he is doing to support workers in his constituency. The Secretary of State mentioned that aerospace industry turnover has grown to £30 billion; with respect to Boeing’s position, can more be done to use financial leverage for the future?

Greg Clark: The aerospace sector is a good example of how taking a strategic approach, bringing together the industry firms with universities and research establishments, makes it attractive for small firms in the supply chain to establish themselves. That has been the basis of the aerospace sector’s success, and it is the approach we take in the industrial strategy. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said in response to the urgent question earlier, an aerospace sector deal will build on that existing reputation and further advance the industry’s prospects.

Kevan Jones: Bombardier is a UK success story; I congratulate the workforce and management in Belfast. I agree with the Secretary of State that the relationship with Boeing is important, not only from a commercial point of view but from a military view. Does he agree that if Boeing does not relent on this issue, it will put at risk its plans for both technology enhancements and commercial opportunities in the UK?

Greg Clark: Yes.

Clive Betts: As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that the preferred solution would be a negotiated settlement with Boeing—an all-out war between the UK and Boeing is clearly in no one’s interest. He rightly referred to the development of Boeing’s first manufacturing output facility in Europe—it is in my constituency and work has started on it—but Boeing has been an essential and original player in the development of advanced manufacturing facilities in Sheffield and Rotherham for the past 10 years. It is crucial that we do everything we can to defend and protect the jobs at Bombardier, while doing nothing to compromise the possibility of further development and jobs from Boeing in Sheffield.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know from having attended the meetings in Sheffield just how important and welcome that investment has been. Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear that although advanced manufacturing institutions such as those in and around Sheffield are being established, we expect, just as the Canadian Government do, that if companies participate in institutions that promote the UK aerospace sector, they must not at the same time recklessly damage another important part of that sector.

Sylvia Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for his valiant efforts to save the Bombardier jobs in Northern Ireland. In his statement, he emphasised the fact that the British  Government are working jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government; nevertheless, I am really curious—as are, I am sure, people in Bombardier and in Northern Ireland—to know how effective he reckons the diplomatic efforts between the British and American Governments have been. This is our closest ally: how effective have the diplomatic efforts been?

Greg Clark: As I say, we are making a joint effort. It is important that we co-ordinate completely our approach with the Canadian Government, and we have done that. The intensity of our engagement and the actions that we have taken have been completely agreed with the Canadian Government. They obviously have an important relationship with the US, as we do, and we want to make use of that to communicate, as we have done, the importance of Bombardier in Belfast and the importance of applying fairness in this situation, and we will continue to do that. As I have said—my Canadian counterparts are on record as saying exactly the same—this is the first, initial determination. There is some way to go and we, and I personally, will not relent until these jobs are saved and Bombardier can continue its progress in Belfast.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues for all the work they are doing on this issue, and I pay tribute to the workforce, the trade unions and the management of Bombardier in Belfast for the way they have approached this crisis. Does he agree that, not only today but going forward, everybody in this House should be united behind the workforce and the management? They should not seek to use this issue to score petty political points or as a battering ram against the Government. Our focus should be on the workers: that is what they want to see and they want everybody to be united behind them.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently and strongly, and I think that is the mood of the House. Whatever the resolution, which we are determined will secure and sustain Bombardier’s future, the workforce is currently going through a torrid time, with people wondering about their livelihoods. That is why the earlier this situation can be brought to a conclusion by Boeing withdrawing its action, the better. It is important that we in this country show complete solidarity. Our debates about Brexit and the American Administration can continue, but every single Member of this House should recognise that this is an unjustified complaint against an important part of the economy. We should be united in standing up for the Bombardier workforce.

Douglas Chapman: I express my sympathy with Members from Northern Ireland, who have spoken eloquently on the issues that face them directly and the workforce that they are trying to protect. The Secretary of State in his statement said that, earlier in the year, the Minister for Energy and Industry, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) met Boeing about the future relationship with the company. The Secretary of State will be well aware that there are huge and strategic contracts for P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, based at Lossiemouth, which will be important for the UK’s future strategic position and its position in NATO. What specific discussions has the Department had with Boeing about other contracts? How do we square  the circle when it comes to what is happening with Bombardier in Northern Ireland and other Boeing contracts that we might have to rely on in future?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman allows me to re-emphasise the conversation that I had with Boeing, which is that if there is to be a continuing relationship, we need the confidence that Boeing will deal fairly with the United Kingdom. If this is to be a strategic partnership, it needs to be a partnership, and partners do not take the kind of action against important United Kingdom interests that Boeing is seeking to take.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Secretary of State agree that many workers at Bombardier and in the supply chain across County Antrim, and indeed all of Northern Ireland, will find it despicable that some people would come here— indeed, outside this Chamber—and use the peace process, the spectre of the border and the plight of workers as a critique of how the Government are dealing with this issue? We must stand together, united in our approach to this. Will he also give the House the assurance that when it comes to crunch time—and crunch time is coming—the British Government will not be found wanting in how they defend British workers in Northern Ireland?

Greg Clark: I can give that complete assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I think this does unite everyone in the House and across all parts of Northern Ireland, and indeed the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has again been assiduous in ensuring that no stone is unturned in making the case, as have the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party and others in Northern Ireland.
A point on which I did not answer the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—I apologise—was about our contacts with other people in the US system: congressmen, senators and governors. That has been carried out, again in complete co-ordination with the Canadian Government, and it has been significantly helped by the cordial relations that exist between the United States and many people in Ireland.

Chris Matheson: These events put me in mind of those in the 1970s, when the American aerospace industry ran an aggressive campaign against sales of Concorde, spiking any sales of that plane at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that the motivation for Boeing is not about a trade dispute, but about wiping out a competitor? This situation on its own would be serious enough as it is, but does he also agree that, taken with the statement earlier about the problems at BAE Systems, this is a defining moment for the British aerospace sector as a whole and that we need strong Government support across the sector?

Greg Clark: I think these are separate issues. This is a trade dispute—an unjustified complaint that Boeing has brought against Bombardier. It is important that it should be thrown out and the case dismissed. As for the motivation for it, that is for Boeing to describe. It has alleged that this is unfair competition. All I would observe is that it is difficult to point to competition when the product does not compete with an existing Boeing product, so Boeing’s longer-term motivations will need to be justified to the International Trade Commission.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his hard work and his endeavours on behalf of the workers. I have a Bombardier factory in my constituency, as well as a number of companies that feed into the supply chain. It is clear not only that those at Bombardier will be affected, but that those in the supply chain will be as well. At the same time, Bombardier’s aerospace business was worth $2.4 billion in the US last year—800 companies and, as the Minister said himself, 23,000 workers. Is it not the case that Boeing needs to be careful about the hand that feeds it?

Greg Clark: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and he is right to point out that, as well as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked so indefatigably on this, constituency representatives across Northern Ireland—indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom—are also affected. I agree with his injunction that we should continue to pursue this to a satisfactory resolution. He has my commitment that we will do that.
Perhaps I can end by reiterating a tribute to the workforce, not just at Bombardier but in the supply chain, who have continued to work completely uninterrupted at the high level and on a calibre of product for which they have an international renown. We want that international renown extended and able to prosper in the future, and I am absolutely determined that we will do that.

LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS  (MEDICINAL PURPOSES)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes; and for connected purposes.
This is the Elizabeth Brice Bill. Elizabeth Brice was a remarkable lady who campaigned for many years in this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. She was a brilliant person. She was a television producer. Among her many achievements, she translated the Noddy books into Latin. She came here because, as a highly intelligent woman, she was struck down at the age of 26 with multiple sclerosis, which virtually destroyed her life and affected her young family. After 10 years of using medicinal drugs, she found one that gave her peace and relief from her spasms. She came to this House and had a cup of cannabis tea on the Terrace.
Our law states that Elizabeth Brice could have been sent to prison for five years for doing that. There was a court case in which an elderly man in a wheelchair moved a jury to tears with his account of his use of medicinal cannabis. The jury said, “We don’t want to find this man guilty; we disagree with this law.” They asked the judge whether they could change it and find the man not guilty, but the judge said, “No. You don’t make the law, I as a judge don’t make the law; only Parliament can change this.” So the ball is very much in our court today.
Who supports the Bill? The Multiple Sclerosis Society has given me a statement saying that it wants to see this Bill passed. It says:
“We believe the law on cannabis should be changed (like it’s changing in Ireland, Canada and Germany), so that someone with MS can access cannabis for medicinal use”.
I would also have had the support of Queen Victoria, although I had difficulty contacting her, as she used the substance every month of her life.
Cannabis was used as a medicine in this country until 1973. There is a host of people who are now Elizabeth Brices outside. One of them wrote me a very moving letter in which he said that two people in his family are using medicinal cannabis. A medical professional reported to the police that those people were using medicinal cannabis, albeit in a way that was not harming anyone—it was a completely victimless crime; they were growing it themselves. That man writes that he could easily get a criminal record and his family would be in all kinds of trouble as a result.
Are we really saying that this is a sensible law? The tide of world opinion is moving in the direction of legalising cannabis. Some 29 states in America—the majority—have already legalised medical cannabis without any problems arising. There are six or seven states in Europe where it is possible to use cannabis medicinally. We have forgotten that this is the oldest medicine in the world. It has been used for at least 5,000 years—archaeological evidence supports that—and we know that if there were problems with it, they would have been discovered years ago.
As with all drugs, people will object that there are malign side effects, but as someone who has been campaigning in this House against drug misuse for many years, I can say that the ones that we have trouble with now, such as valproate, are the opioid drugs and neuroleptic drugs used in residential homes for the elderly. There is massive misuse of these drugs, which have very serious side effects. Cannabis involves side effects, but no problems have arisen in all the states and countries that have taken this on.
If we legalise drugs, we reduce side effects by taking the market out of the hands of the criminals and the scammers, and putting those drugs in a legal market that can be run by doctors using medical priorities. These are the lessons from all the states in America that have taken this step.
A policewoman suffering from multiple sclerosis came to me because she found herself needing to get her cannabis from the criminals she once arrested. That is the situation that people are in now. I am touched that people have made the journey here today to ask this Parliament to decide not on the basis of prejudice, but on the basis of science.
It is time for us to lead public opinion rather than following it. It would be an act of compassion and courage for us to pass this Bill and make the very minor change it proposes: moving cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2. At the moment, the law says that cannabis has no beneficial effects, but we all know that it does, but if there are problems with it, the former chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said that we would need to prevent 5,000 people from taking cannabis to stop one possible case of psychosis. I do not know whether anybody will be opposing this Bill today—no one has suggested to me that they will do so—but I would like to deal with that question. Yes, with any drug there are risks, and I certainly would not want to see anyone using cannabis mixed with that deadly, addictive drug, tobacco.
Today people are using the drug outside on the green as a food, a drink, a tincture and an ointment, as well as vaping it. I believe that the public and the police—two police and crime commissioners have written to me in support of the Bill—know that the law is unenforceable. It is time for us to take our courage in our hands and say, “Let us take this step.” Doing so would be a step on the road to intelligent campaigning. We place too much reliance on the prejudices and screeching of the press; it is time for us to take the lead. Doing so would be an act of kindness and compassion that would bring genuine relief to people who are suffering from serious ailments.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Flynn, Frank Field, Caroline Lucas, Mary Glindon, Jeff Smith, Kelvin Hopkins, Crispin Blunt, Michael Fabricant, Martyn Day, Ronnie Cowan, Layla Moran and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.
Paul Flynn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 108).

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing today’s debate to take place, and I thank hon. and right hon. Members from other parties who were in the Chamber yesterday to demonstrate the will of the House in the manner required under Standing Order No. 24. I should also like to acknowledge the role of Government business managers in extending our sitting hours today to accommodate this debate alongside the other business of the day.
We have already had two statements, an urgent question and a ten-minute rule motion, and there remains important business to follow, so I want to come as quickly as possible to the substance of the matter. But it is worth briefly reminding the House why this matter is considered to be both urgent and important, as required by Standing Order No. 24.
As I explained to the House yesterday, the House had its first day for Opposition motions on Wednesday 13 September, on which the two topics for debate were public sector pay and student tuition fees. Ministers and Back Benchers spoke vigorously in opposition to both motions, but when the questions were put, no voices were raised in opposition and both motions passed unanimously. The next day, the political commentator Paul Waugh—we would say his name slightly differently in Scotland—described the situation thus in the Huffington Post:
“Crucially, that meant there was no vote recorded other than unanimous approval, and no way to say how individual MPs voted.”
He went on:
“And this was no one-off. In a significant shift in the way the Government treats the Commons, Tory sources told me they have decided not to oppose any future Opposition Day motions. In other words, MPs can say whatever they like but as long as there’s a non-binding motion, the PM will tell her troops to give a collective ‘meh’. Government whips will instead focus on turning out the numbers for ‘votes that matter’, ie on legislation such as Brexit bills.”
That position, he later says,
“reduces all Opposition Days to mere debating society events, with no consequence.”
Mr Waugh is quite right in his assessment of the policy—if it is, in fact, Government policy. It was for that reason that I sought to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions on 14 September. Her answer, I confess, was slightly less than reassuring:
“The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press.”
That is good advice, and it is a lesson that we probably all learned some time ago, but it is something less than, or short of, the full-throated denial that one might have hoped for in the circumstances. The Leader of the House went on to make some comments about the debates that were not really relevant to the question, but she finished by saying:
“There is no question but that this Government continue to fully engage in Opposition day debates.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 997.]
The House needs to hear from the Leader of the House today what was meant by her words “fully engage”. Does she mean that the Government will do as their predecessors have done—engage in debate, agree where they agree, oppose where they do not and bring amendments where they wish to—or does she mean that the Government will, as Mr Waugh so memorably puts it, tell the troops to give this House “a collective ‘meh’”?

Lucy Frazer: The right hon. Gentleman is making a significant point about the importance of engaging in debates. Can he tell the House how many Liberal Democrats took part in the debate on the very important Finance Bill on 12 September? Could he confirm that it was none?

Alistair Carmichael: I can see how this is going to proceed, and it will not be as I might have hoped. I had hoped we might raise the debate a little bit higher than that. The hon. and learned Lady is well aware that there are 12 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament sitting in this Parliament, and if she cares to consult the record she will find that we play a full and constructive part in the proceedings of this House.

Mark Harper: To be fair, I can see that there is a decent turnout of Liberal Democrats today. However, in the important debate about the national health service to which the right hon. Gentleman specifically refers, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is their health spokesman, confirmed—I am quoting here from Hansard—that he was the “sole Liberal Democrat present” in the debate and felt it his “duty to intervene”. So in a debate in which the Government were fully engaged, only one Liberal Democrat could be bothered to turn up in Parliament.

Alistair Carmichael: I can almost read the Whips’ brief that has gone round about the Opposition day debates—“Don’t make this about the Government, because this is not strong territory for the Government. Make it all about the Liberal Democrats or the opposition parties.” With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like and regard as a friend in many senses of the word, if not the political one, I am not going to play his game. Today’s debate is the Government’s opportunity to tell the House clearly and unambiguously how they intend to approach their business for the duration of this Parliament.
There is a further context to the Government’s approach on 14 September that the House should bear in mind. On Monday 11 September, they brought forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including some quite remarkable Henry VIII powers, which many in this House and beyond see as a marginalisation of Parliament. On Tuesday 12 September, they brought to this House a motion to give themselves a majority on all Public Bill Committees, contrary to all previous practice in this House and the formula relied on for many years.

Peter Bone: I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not say that that applies to all Bill Committees, because he well knows that that is not the case if there are equal numbers.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware that the House has for many years used a formula under which the Government would have been entitled at best to a balanced Committee, while in all other respects the majority would have been with the Opposition parties.

Vernon Coaker: Stitched up.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed—stitched up, as the hon. Gentleman says.
The Government did that on 12 September on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement that they had struck with the Democratic Unionist party gave them a working majority in the House. Unfortunately, that working majority was not in evidence when it came to the Opposition day debates the next day.
It is worth noting in passing that the Opposition day debates on 13 September were the first to be held since Parliament reassembled after the general election—some 27 sitting days, to be exact. In 2015 the same gap was 13 sitting days, in 2010 it was 16 and in 2005 it was 12. We would have to go back to the early days of the Labour Government in 1997 to find a comparable figure, although I suggest that it is worth considering the nature and volume of legislation that was dealt with in the early days of that Parliament compared with what we have had since 8 June.
Our system relies on a delicate combination of checks and balances. The best Governments—and if ever there was a time in our country’s history when we needed the best possible Government, this is surely it—are those that are tested by Parliament, by the Opposition parties and by their own Back Benchers. Time and again, our system fails when the Government and the Opposition agree and arguments remain untested. How different might the debates on the case for going to war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 have been if the then Opposition had been prepared to take a more questioning approach to Tony Blair’s case? I am sad to say that this Government, however, do not welcome scrutiny by Parliament, but rather seek to avoid it.
The issues before the House on 13 September were questions of substantial significance. If they are issues on which the Government do not command a majority in this House, then the Government should not get their way. The Prime Minister went to the country in June seeking a larger majority than the one she had, but the people of Britain denied her such a majority. However difficult that may make life for her and her colleagues, the verdict of the people on 8 June ought to be respected in this House. It is the job of all of us in this House to ensure that it is, and Opposition day debates are one important way in which that should be done. Occasionally, it is possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree on a motion and for it to be passed without a Division. Until now, there have been very few examples of a motion being disputed in debate, but still passing without a Division.
Very rarely, the Government of the day are defeated in a Division. In my time in the House, that was most memorably accomplished in 2009, when the rights of Gurkha soldiers who had served the Crown to settle in the UK was at issue. Matters came to a head on 29 April 2009, when on a motion from the Conservative party in opposition the then Labour Government  were defeated. It is worth going back and reading the Hansard of that debate. It is apparent, even just reading the words on paper, that that debate meant something. That debate was more than just a debate; it was a vehicle for righting a wrong and a vehicle for change.
We have all heard it said over the years that Parliament has increasingly been marginalised by the Executive. A series of large majorities given to the Conservative and Labour parties has undoubtedly contributed to that process, but this Parliament should be different. Not because you or I say it should be different, Mr Speaker, but because the people of the United Kingdom at the ballot box on 8 June said that it should be different.
In one sense, the Government have done us a favour by bringing this issue to a head, because it forces us as a House to decide what our role in the future of this country is going to be. Is it to be an active participant, with a strong voice and a decisive say, or is it to be a supine bystander as the Government continue to do as they wish, regardless of their lack of a mandate and, as is increasingly obvious, their lack of authority.
I have been a member of many debating societies over the years. They have all been fine organisations that provided entertainment and mental stimulation in equal measure. I mean them therefore no disrespect when I say that I stood for Parliament believing I was doing something more significant than signing up for a debating society. The difference is that in Parliament—in this House —we can actually effect change. Whether we choose to do so is in our own hands.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate, Mr Speaker. I will reciprocate what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said about me—I have been friendly with him, except perhaps in a political sense—but I think he rather overstates his case. Let me run through his argument. First, he describes a particular decision about two particular Opposition day debates, and suggests that that will be the Government’s practice going forward. The only evidence that he presents is a single tweet by a single political journalist, quoting unnamed sources about the Government’s behaviour going forward. It seems to me that the practice has been—it certainly was when I was Government Chief Whip—to consider what we do about Opposition day motions on a case-by-case basis.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been only those two debates so far. It was for that reason that, at business questions on 14 September, I gave the Leader of the House the opportunity to refute what was in the Huffington Post article. Had she chosen to do so, we would not be here today.

Mark Harper: First, I do not think it is reasonable to expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on every single newspaper report or tweet that comments about—

Edward Davey: Answer the question.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman says it was about his right Friend’s question. It was a question, but the point is it was about a tweet. Hon. Members would  not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on every single press comment about the House and dignify them all with a response. To come back to the point I was making when I took the intervention, the Government cannot be expected to have a blanket policy for what they do about Opposition days. We look at the motion on the Order Paper.
I have got into trouble in the past. When I responded at the Dispatch Box to Opposition day debates, I was often criticised because I used to do that dreadful thing of actually looking at the words on the Order Paper that the House was being asked to agree or not. I would be told that they did not really matter—what mattered was the debate we were having, and the general principle, and that we did not worry about the words. Well actually, the words are important and the right stance for the Government, each time there is an Opposition day motion —indeed any motion—before the House is to look at the words on the Order Paper and then make a judgment about whether they wish to support or oppose them. I will come to the specific motions that were being considered in a moment.

Sylvia Hermon: May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that from now on, when a DUP Member makes a comment in an Opposition day debate—as they did in our first Opposition day debate in this Parliament—that they are not minded to support the Government at the end of the day in a vote, the Government will not be persuaded by the DUP, will not be dictated to by the DUP, but will actually call a vote? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mark Harper: No, it is not what I am saying. I am saying what I said in my own words. Let me go to the decision that I think the Government took on the motions; then the Leader of the House may comment in due course.
What the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, in his pitch to Mr Speaker yesterday and in his debate today, was that in both debates the Government argued against the motions that were on the Order Paper. Before today’s debate I carefully read the debates to see whether that was right: I do not think it was. In the NHS debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not argue against the motion on the Order Paper. What he actually said was that it was bogus, because it did not address some of the fundamental issues. [Interruption.] This is exactly as I said, Mr Speaker. As soon as attention is drawn to the motions on the Order Paper, which the House was being asked to agree, people do not like it. That is the fundamental point here, and one I am sure my right hon. Friend considered before he made a decision about the way that Government Members should vote.

Robert Syms: One of the most precious things in this House is a party deciding when it will or when it will not vote. That is up to a party, or indeed up to a Government. This is the first time I can remember an Opposition complaining that they are not being defeated by the Government.

Mark Harper: It is interesting, because when I read the debate it was of course the Opposition spokesman, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who asked the Government not to divide the House on the NHS  motion. The Government then proceeded not to divide the House on the motion, and now all we get is a load of complaints—which seems to me remarkably strange.

Simon Hoare: Does my right hon. Friend draw any comfort, as I did, from the fact that the party once of Campbell-Bannerman, Gladstone and Lloyd George has now decided to predicate the national debate on information that it ascribes to something called the Huffington Post?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which requires no elaboration from me.
A couple of things struck me about the motion on the Order Paper about the NHS. First, it made very selective use of statistics. For example, it talked about the number of nurses and midwives joining the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, which is an important figure, but of course not directly applicable to the number of nurses working in the NHS, which the Secretary of State correctly pointed out had increased by 12,000. So it would not be right to oppose a motion that had some factually correct statistics in it, but they were not relevant to the argument about the number of nurses and midwives actually working in the NHS.
The final part of the motion talked about ending the public sector pay cap of 1%, and of course my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who excellently wound up that debate, made the point that for the forthcoming financial year, the Government would allow the pay review bodies more flexibility anyway, so it seemed rather pointless to be engaging in that debate.
I have no complaint about the Labour party, but this is what parties do in opposition. It put in the words at the end that suggested that NHS workers should be given a fair pay rise, which I think would probably command support across the House, including from myself and my hon. Friends. The debate, of course, is about what constitutes a fair pay rise—what is affordable. But to think we were going to fall into the trap of voting against a motion that would just then enable lots of Labour MPs to put out leaflets saying that we were against a pay rise! They are playing a political game. We know what the game is. I am going to be very fair: it is what we would do if we were in their position. It is not our job, though, to fall into their trap and make their lives easier. Our job is to get on with governing and making the right decisions, which is exactly what we did.

Wera Hobhouse: I am a new MP and I am still getting to know my way around, but I did not expect my new role to be reduced to being a member of a talking shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that not allowing a vote on the Opposition debate reflects a deep disregard for parliamentary democracy?

Mark Harper: I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady if she had actually bothered to turn up to listen to the debate in the first place, which, according to her own colleague, she did not—[Interruption.] Well, according to Hansard, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), said on the record that he was the  only Liberal Democrat present and that he felt he had to intervene. If that is inaccurate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should correct the parliamentary record. It is not my job to be responsible for the accuracy of the parliamentary record of the right hon. Gentleman. I note he is probably the only Liberal Democrat MP not here today.

Wera Hobhouse: I was in the debate: please check the record. I was there and I was very disappointed that we could not vote.

Mark Harper: I do not dispute the hon. Lady’s thing. All I can say is that I was quoting from Hansard, when the Liberal Democrat health spokesman said:
“I feel that as the sole Liberal Democrat present it is my duty to intervene.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 862.]
If that is inaccurate, that is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and he should correct the record. That is not my responsibility.
On the motion on the national health service on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary laid out the facts about the importance of a strong economy in paying for the health service. He laid out a lot of important facts about our record on the health service, but actually he was not arguing that we should vote against the motion at all. He frequently said it was a bogus motion and that he did not want to engage with it, so I do not think that that can be said.

Peter Bone: I really have heard enough from the former Chief Whip. Parliament voted, Parliament made a decision. He cannot get away from that. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if Parliament decides on something the Government should listen?

Mark Harper: Yes I do. I read the motion very carefully. It said that the Government should abandon the 1% pay cap; and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in her response to the debate, made it clear that the pay review bodies for the next financial year would have more flexibility—so, in effect, she confirmed that part of it.
The second part of the motion referred to NHS staff getting a fair pay rise. We all agree that NHS workers—indeed, public sector workers generally—should get a fair pay rise. The point of political debate is to ask what “fair” means. We have to balance affordability for the economy, what public sector workers need to get paid for recruitment, retention and morale purposes, and what those in the private sector, who pay taxes to pay for our public services, are being paid. If we read the motion, I think we find it was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which I suspect is exactly why the Secretary of State for Health did not feel it was sensible to urge Conservative colleagues to vote against it.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. He obviously was unable to hear my first intervention, so may I just repeat my question? If the 10 DUP MPs indicate during an Opposition day debate that they are not going to support the Government, will the Government vote on the motion?

Mark Harper: The answer to that is that I have no idea. I am a former Government Chief Whip, not the current one.

Chris Bryant: There’s a reason for that. [Interruption.]

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my colleagues’ support. I suspect the Government will make their decisions on Opposition day motions on a case-by-case basis, when they have looked at the words on the Order Paper.
The second very important motion on the Order Paper that day was about the higher education regulations relating to tuition fees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out the case powerfully on the substance of the proposition before the House on the need for tuition fees. She contrasted it with the position in Scotland, which does not have tuition fees. In Scotland, fewer children go to university, fewer poor children go to university and universities are not properly funded—not a position I want to see in England. She laid that out clearly.
It was also the case that the regulations were laid before the House on 15 December 2016 and came into force on 20 February this year, so voting against them would have had no effect whatever. There was an argument at the front of the debate when the shadow Secretary of State for Education tried to pretend that it was somehow the Government’s fault that the measures had not been debated. She said that the Opposition had prayed against them but had not had time for a debate. Well, I looked at the record, and there were three Opposition days between the regulations being laid and coming into force on 20 February. Those days were Wednesday 11 January, Tuesday 17 January and Wednesday 25 January. On any of those occasions, the Opposition could have used their time to debate the regulations. If the House had voted against them on any of those occasions, they would not have come into force. The fact that the Opposition chose not to do so is their responsibility, not the Government’s.

Chris Bryant: As Government Ministers constantly reiterated, the whole point of secondary legislation was that if the Leader of the Opposition called for a debate not in Opposition time, the Government would provide the time and the vote in Government time. That is precisely what they should have done. They are the people who broke their word—not us.

Mark Harper: That is not reasonable. The hon. Gentleman knows, as came out in the debate, that a date had been decided to debate those regulations, but then the general election intervened.

We didn’t call it!

John Bercow: Order. Large numbers of hon. Members are proclaiming from a sedentary position the self-evident truth that it was not their decision to call the election—a perfectly valid piece of information, but entirely useless for the purposes of this debate. The important point is that Members must be able to hear each other speak in it.

Mark Harper: Of course, it was technically the decision of this House to have the early election. The Prime Minister brought the motion before the House but—   thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which I had a little hand in—it was, of course, the decision of the House to have the election.
My point stands. There were three opportunities when the House could have voted down the regulations. The Opposition had the time and chose not to debate them. The point is that the regulations had already come into force when the House was faced with the debate on 13 September, so voting against them would have had no practical effect. It would have been a completely pointless exercise to have a vote that would have had no effect. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the House being a talking shop. Procedures about when we have to vote on secondary legislation are set out in the statutory instruments legislation and the parent Acts; those time limits had expired. That is the Opposition’s fault because they had three opportunities in January when they could have used their time to debate the matter, but they chose not to do so.

Alistair Carmichael: If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, a vote is a nonsense, surely that is an argument for going ahead with it, not for avoiding it.

Mark Harper: No, no. I do not follow that at all. The point is that the vote would have had no practical effect because the regulations had already come into force and the time limit for revoking them had passed. That was the Opposition’s responsibility, not the Government’s.

Chris Bryant: No!

Mark Harper: It is an arguable point. I have made my argument and the hon. Gentleman has made his, as he will no doubt do again later.
There were two good reasons why the Government chose, looking at the words on the Order Paper on 13 September, not to divide the House. I do not think that sets a precedent for the future. The Government will make those decisions when they look at future Opposition day motions. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is making a mountain out of a molehill. I suggest that the House waits to see what happens on future Opposition days before it gets itself so worked up. We have had a good gambol around the subject but I do not really think that the right hon. Gentleman has made his case to the satisfaction of Members more generally.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech, for which we are grateful. I call Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, following the application from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) yesterday.
While the motion reads,
“That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House”,
I would prefer to deal with two aspects of it separately: the constitutional convention that decisions of Parliament are enacted by the Government and the scheduling of Opposition days throughout the year as set out in Standing Orders. Speaking in support of the motion, I will start with the allocation of Opposition days.  The Government have often to be brought to the House for bypassing and—I hope I do not put this too strongly—appearing to have contempt for the House. The two-year Session of Parliament was announced by press release on 17 June 2017. The right hon. Lady could have announced it during business questions on 22 June, her first outing as Leader of the House, but she did not.
A Session usually starts in November and runs until the following October. On average, there used to be four Sessions in a Parliament, but that was before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; there is now an assumption of five Sessions. Each Session carries an allocation of Opposition days, as set out on page 334 of “Erskine May”.

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady made a serious charge about the Government having contempt for the House. Does she not think it potentially contemptuous to put forward a motion that has no binding effect and which some might say is purely for political effect?

Valerie Vaz: I am sorry but I thought we were in politics. We are politicians, so that is what we would expect to do in here. In any event, it does not really matter; I will come on to whether a motion is binding. It is something we need to check. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, checks “Erskine May”, he will see that on page 334 it says:
“Standing Order No 14 provides that on 20 days in each session proceedings on business chosen by the opposition parties shall have precedence over government business.”
These books on the Table are not window dressing: “Erskine May”, Standing Orders—they are there because they are the rules of the House, as interpreted by the very honourable Clerks. As you know, Mr Speaker, there have been numerous requests for the full allocation of Opposition days—you have heard me ask the Leader of the House for the dates at business questions—but they have not been forthcoming.

Jeremy Quin: I would be most grateful if the hon. Lady could advise the House where in “Erskine May” it says that Government Members have to vote in a Division.

Valerie Vaz: They are the rules and privileges of the House. I will find the reference. The intervention was clearly done to disrupt the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to stop, and if you will allow me the time, Mr Speaker, I will look it up, or, alternatively, we can eat into the time of Back Benchers. He can decide. I am happy to look through it.

Chris Bryant: Is not the much bigger point that if Members decide to let the vote go through, they are effectively assenting to the motion?

Valerie Vaz: That point, which I am coming to, needs to be clarified, and it is the Government’s job to do such a thing. Mr Speaker, you have heard me ask for clarification several times, and we have had numerous discussions through the usual channels, but we have had absolutely nothing. It is sad that Parliament is treated this way. I did not think that, in the first week back after the conference recess, I would be standing here arguing for the same thing I did before the recess.
We play a vital role in our democracy. The use of the term “Her Majesty’s Opposition” was first coined in 1826 by John Cam Hobhouse and was given statutory recognition in 1937. The official Opposition is defined as
“the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office”.
That is an important constitutional role, and we should not be prevented from doing our job. We would like to fulfil that role but that is the effect of not giving us dates for our debates. The Government want to stifle debate and so deny all the Opposition parties a chance to challenge them and put forward their policies.
Secondly, having been given that Opposition day on 13 September, the shadow Secretaries of State for Health and for Education moved and spoke eloquently to their motions, and we then witnessed the bizarre spectacle of the Government making no comment whatsoever. They had tabled no amendment to the motion. There was no voting for and no voting against, so Parliament was left in limbo. What was the status of the motion? It was a proper, substantive motion, defined as a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House—and it did, in this case to NHS workers and students about to start university.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is right to make the point that the Chamber is not just a hothouse of debate. It is about what people want to listen to, to find out what is important. There are parents in the country who are quite keen to hear the views of all the political parties about how to address the very sad problem of baby deaths. Is she embarrassed and ashamed that she and her colleagues are detaining the House by having a debate about debates, and not about the issues?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is wrong. My family has suffered a baby loss. This is a very important date, because it is the anniversary of the death of my brother’s baby, my brother being my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I know how important the issue is, but this is not a debate about a debate. People throughout the country want to know what is going on and what we do in Parliament. They want to know that their Parliament is supreme. They want to know that we are debating and discussing.
The position that was outlined in the motions appeared in the manifesto of the Democratic Unionist party, and its members owe their electorate an explanation of why they did not vote in support. Because the DUP has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, the Government knew that they could not command its support, and would have lost the vote. That is significant, because the confidence and supply agreement itself has to come before the House to be debated. Again, it takes the courts to tell the Government what parliamentary democracy means. Worse still, the Government then decided, during the conference recess, that the Opposition’s policies on those two subjects would be their policies. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will know that the Government made a statement on both policies.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned a journalist who is well known around the House, and who suggested that the Government were  not intending to vote against or amend our motions, but would sit on their hands for all our Opposition debates.

Robert Syms: The hon. Lady has been in the House for long enough to know that many things are debated here. Ten-minute rule Bills are let through because they raise an issue, and motions are sometimes passed by a few Members during Back-Bench business debates because, again, they raise an important issue. Is it not right that the Government make their own decisions about what they will oppose and what they will not oppose? At the end of the day, that is a choice for the Front Bench. If, politically, Members think that that is a bad thing to do, let them have their Standing Order No. 24 and make the point, but ultimately what we vote for is down to the Cabinet and the Whips Office, and that is our choice.

Valerie Vaz: This is a debating Chamber, and this is a revising Parliament. Members can table motions, and then people can see what policy comes out. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the deputy shadow Leader of the House, persuaded the Government to take on board the need for a new piece of legislation, and that is how we do things here. Ministers listen, they take on board what happens, and then we move forward. That is what I am trying to say.

Peter Bone: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying. This debate is about Parliament v. the Executive, and it is right that it is urgent, because the issue needs to be discussed. Does she agree, however, that Parliament voted, and therefore the Government should take note of whatever Parliament decided on that day and respond to it? She will agree, I hope, that if the Opposition had wanted to engineer a vote on that day, it would have been quite possible. I do not think we should misrepresent Parliament and say that a decision was not made; a decision was made to support the Opposition motions.

Valerie Vaz: I am pleased to hear that, but I wish that it had been indicated to everyone at the time. It would have been fantastic if it had been 564-nil.

Toby Perkins: One point being made from the Government Benches is that it is a matter for the Government to decide whether they vote. However, with regard to the relevance of this place, many people watch debates that come up, on Opposition days and at other times, and they expect a vote, and if there is no vote then they believe that the view of Parliament has been heard and they expect things to change as a result. If the Government’s approach is to allow motions through but then not carry them through in policy terms, then people will rightly think that we are just a talking shop.

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I keep saying, the Government seem to be governing by press release and press announcement, rather than by coming to the House to explain exactly what is going on with regard to policy. That policy has now been agreed. Actually, when we think about it, is it committed expenditure? The Chancellor seems to be saying what he wants but it is not even committed expenditure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Valerie Vaz: I will not give way, because I am conscious that many Back Benchers wish to speak, and I will shut up in a minute.
There were many points of order about the tweet from the journalist—I need to protect my sources, but it was Paul Waugh—stating that this is what would happen, and the matter was also raised in business questions. The Leader of the House then said, “Don’t believe everything you hear on Twitter.” I can understand that for the President of the United States, but the Leader of the House also tweets. Are we to believe her or not?
The most important point is that the Leader of the House gave no clarification or explanation as to why Parliament is being treated in this way, or on finding a way forward. We are now in the spill-over and the House needs this to be explained. Will the Government continue to treat Opposition motions as decisions of the House, as though they were wearing an invisibility cloak? Will the Leader of the House resolve this with Mr Speaker and find a way forward on substantive motions of the House?

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Valerie Vaz: No, because I am nearly finished, and the right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time.
This makes a mockery of Parliament. Parliament is a forum for debate, discussion and amendments, as seen in the example given by the excellent Minister, Phil Woolas, who listened to the House, even though he was ambushed by a celebrity, and changed his policy—whether or not that was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, he said, “I have listened to the House.”
Finally, in the preface to “Erskine May”, the guide to the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, there is a dedication to you, Mr Speaker. It entrusts you with the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system. You have done that many times in this House, and in granting this debate. I ask you to convey to the Government that they must abide by that dedication.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Mr Stephen Hammond.

Stephen Hammond: rose—

John Bercow: I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon, but I think the Leader of the House was intending to come in next. Am I right?

Andrea Leadsom: Mr Speaker, it is entirely a matter for the Chair.

John Bercow: It most certainly is a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Lady does not have to be difficult about it. What I was seeking to establish is whether she is an eager speaker; if she is, she can speak, and if she is not, she will not. It is pretty straightforward. Frankly—let me just say this—the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench should have sorted this out between them in advance of the debate. It was a degree of cack-handed incompetence that they did not do so.

Andrea Leadsom: Mr Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that, as in all things, my office was assiduous in coming to the Speaker’s Office to request that we speak straight after the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—

John Bercow: Order. The Leader of the House really ought to know by now that these matters are dealt with differently on different occasions and that there are precedents either way. What we know is that the right hon. Lady has the opportunity to speak, and quite a full opportunity, and therefore nothing of which to complain. The Leader of the House.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Parliamentary procedure is of vital importance to our democracy, and it is taken very seriously on both sides of the House, so I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which is of course the 14th hour we have spent debating parliamentary procedure in the 26 sitting days since the general election, and apparently all because of a tweet. Well, I am sure that the nation is glued to the Parliament channel.
In response to the right hon. Gentlemen’s accusation that the Government are not listening, I want to set out some steps that we have recently taken to speed up scrutiny and to respond to requests from Members on both sides of the House. First, the Select Committees were established early—quicker than in both 2010 and 2015—and all parties worked quickly to hold elections so that Committees could begin their important work in the September sitting. I was also delighted to ensure that the Backbench Business Committee was established at the same time so that Members would have another channel for scrutiny, and I am pleased to announce that the first Back-Bench debates will be held next week.
Secondly, a sitting of the House was extended for the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to allow many Members to speak about that important legislation. Thirdly, we have allocated eight full days in the Chamber, each with eight protected hours of debate, for that Bill. Those 64 hours are in contrast to the rather more miserable 39 hours and 17 minutes that were spent ratifying the Lisbon treaty.
Fourthly, we have provided Government time for specific debates following requests from Members. The issue of illegal Traveller encampments has been raised by Members on both sides of the House at every business questions since I became Leader of the House, and this week is Baby Loss Awareness Week—a truly tragic issue that affects many people across the UK—so it is right that we have found time to debate both important subjects. I have extended today’s sitting because it would be a great shame if Members were unable to take part in the baby loss debate. Let me also remind the House that the Conservative party set up the Backbench Business Committee, restoring a better balance between Government and Parliament.

Sylvia Hermon: I listened intently to what the right hon. Lady said about the importance of procedure in this House, so how does she feel about the complete absence of DUP Members from the Chamber? Will she also address another key issue? If any of the 10 DUP MPs indicate that they will vote against a motion on an  Opposition day, will the Government give an assurance that they will still decide for themselves whether to press for a vote?

Andrea Leadsom: I want to make it clear to all Members that the House expressed an opinion when it agreed to the relevant Opposition day motions. It does the same when a Back-Bench motion is passed. I think what the hon. Lady, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Leader of the House are trying to argue is that we should be voting against motions. Let me again be clear that the House expressed an opinion in those Opposition day debates. If Members chose not to vote against those motions, it does not mean that the House did not express an opinion.

David Linden: Given that the DUP is not present in the Chamber to hold the Government to account, may I ask whether the Government Chief Whip approached DUP Members in advance of the Opposition day debates to try to get them to change their mind—yes or no?

Andrea Leadsom: I can only say again that how Members vote is a matter for individual Members, and their parties and policies. This House expressed an opinion and the Government listened carefully, as is the case with the many Back-Bench motions that are debated on the Floor of the House and passed without a Division. In every single case, the Government take part fully and listen carefully.
I also want to make the House aware of work away from the Chamber to address Members’ real concerns about the increased volume of secondary legislation during this Session. The Government are aligning their approach to secondary legislation with their approach to primary legislation. The Cabinet Committee that I chair that oversees all primary legislation will now also oversee all secondary legislation. This will manage the flow and quality of statutory instruments more proactively, giving Parliament a much better service and enabling better scrutiny.
Let me address the specific points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the subjects of the two Opposition day debates in September. The Government took full part in those debates. The Government matched the Opposition speaker for speaker. Notably, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the Liberal Democrats failed to put up a single speaker in the tuition fees debate and put up only one in the NHS pay debate. Senior Ministers, on the other hand, were present on the Front Bench and made substantial contributions. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education both opened their debates, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation closed them.
On Second Reading of the Finance Bill the day before, however, there were only five Opposition contributions —three from Labour; none from the Liberal Democrats. In contrast, we heard 17 Back-Bench speeches from Conservative Members, including 12 in a row. In fact, such was the extent of our engagement on that important Bill that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) even made a point of order suggesting that we might be filibustering our own Finance Bill.
The vital issues of NHS pay and tuition fees have been thoroughly debated in this House in recent weeks.

Maria Caulfield: I spoke in the NHS debate in favour of the motion, so I was very pleased that the Government supported it. I can only assume that Opposition Members are so unhappy because they lost an opportunity to beat the Government with a political stick.

Andrea Leadsom: Of course my hon. Friend is exactly right. Opposition Members wanted us to oppose, not support, which was what happened on the day.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Andrea Leadsom: I will not give way to the hon. Lady again.
In addition to the Opposition day debates, there has already been an emergency debate on tuition fees, as well as Government statements, urgent questions from the Opposition and Westminster Hall debates on those subjects.
The Government take their duties in this House very seriously, but I am afraid that those Opposition day motions were meant for party political point scoring. Labour has form in promising everything but not delivering. The party misled students before the general election when the Leader of the Opposition said he would deal with student debt—a £100 billion commitment—only for his shadow Education Secretary to have to admit following the election that that was just an aspiration. Aspirations are not good enough; it is deeds that matter. It is only this Government—a Conservative Government—who can be trusted to deliver strong public services while sorting out the disastrous public finances left to us by Labour.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will not.
Do the Opposition even understand why the country has £1.7 trillion of debt?

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way at last. What the House needs to hear from her is whether the votes on 13 September were one-offs, or if we should expect routinely and frequently to hear from the Government that, when they are going to lose a vote, they will simply avoid that by avoiding a Division

Andrea Leadsom: The right hon. Gentleman will obviously want to check his Twitter account for the answer to that one, since he checked it for the initial answer. The Government take these issues extremely serious. I am trying to explain why we chose not to vote on those political point scoring Opposition day motions.
To this day, I hear Labour suggesting that austerity is a choice or that we have deliberately increased public sector debt, but the fact is that in Labour’s last year in office, the Treasury spent £153 billion more than it received in taxes. The House will recall the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) saying that there was no money left,  which was a painfully honest statement from a Labour politician. In the seven years since, we have managed to reduce that overspend from £153 billion a year to £45 billion last year, but it is that annual overspend that increases debt, which now stands at £65,000 per household in this country. The only way to start tackling the debt is by first getting rid of the overspend. If we do not tackle it, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay, but we do not hear Labour telling young people these truths.

Toby Perkins: I have no idea how that last paragraph has anything to do with the debate that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has secured, so let me bring the Leader of the House back to the matter in hand. Having just had a general election in which the Prime Minister ran away from debates, but then at the end claimed there were no serious debates during the election, it is deeply significant that the things we debate in this Parliament and the votes we have here matter. Will the Government therefore simply make a commitment that they will not treat Opposition day debates in the same way as they have treated Back-Bench debates? That is all we want to hear today.

Andrea Leadsom: I am not surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say he has no idea what that last paragraph represented because I was seeking to explain why this Government are not playing Labour’s party political games. The Opposition do not face up to the reality of the mess they left this country in, and our children and grandchildren will end up paying for their mess unless we can get back to living within our means. That means that in their party political motions we chose to leave them to their games. Conservative Members will always balance the need for fairness to our superb public sector workers with the need for fairness to the next generation.

Peter Bone: There has been a lot of re-running of our previous debate, but I wish to go back to the principle of the thing. If this House expresses an opinion, be it in a Backbench Business Committee debate or an Opposition day debate, it is the Government’s duty to respond to that. Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake that the Government will reflect on whatever decision the House makes and come to make a statement—say within the month—giving their view about or response to what the House has decided?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am trying to explain that that is exactly what the Government are doing in those debates by matching up speaker for speaker to ensure that Back-Bench speakers get their views heard, with Secretaries of State opening the debates and senior Ministers closing them, and by taking account of and listening to Members’ views. It cannot possibly be the case that the Opposition can require Government Members to vote against a motion in order to prove that they were listening—what a daft thesis that is.

Jo Swinson: I am listening to the Leader of the House with great interest, just as I did to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. He seemed to suggest that the Government chose not to vote on those motions—certainly the first one—because the Government were in agreement  and the debate was a political one about what “fair” meant, but she seems to be saying something different about whether or not there is political game playing. Will she confirm that when the Government disagree with the words of a motion, even if they disagree because of political purposes, they will vote against it? Will they vote against any motion whose words they disagree with?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady is trying to put words into my mouth and to make me disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, with whom I absolutely agree. This House expressed a view; what she and other Opposition Members want to do is to force the Government to oppose. The reason why they want the Government to oppose is so that they can then put out a press release that the Government oppose fair pay for public sector workers. That is what this is all about. I am saying that the Government sent their best, most senior Ministers along to take part in the debate and our Back Benchers fully took part in it. We listened, we heard what was said on all sides of the debate, we took part fully, and then we chose to allow those motions to go through unchallenged. That is a completely different issue. This House expressed a view and the Government are listening, but we will not necessarily always choose to take part in party political games. That is what this was, and the Labour party needs to accept its responsibility for the financial mess that means that Conservative Members have to get us out of the economic disaster that they left us. There is just no denying the truth of Margaret Thatcher’s words when she said:
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”
She said that in 1976—it was true then and it is still true today.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to set out for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the Opposition the Government’s strong record on encouraging scrutiny in this House and our deep respect for Parliament. Our Parliament is admired the world over for the way in which it gives the Opposition the opportunity to conduct fierce and effective scrutiny of Government—on Second Readings, in Committee, on Report, on Opposition and Backbench Business Committee days, in Adjournment debates, in Westminster Hall debates and on the Select Committee corridor.
The reason why scrutiny matters is precisely because the Government are listening. That is what this Government have been doing, and it is what they will continue to do. I look forward now to moving on to the more substantive business of the day and debating the issues that really matter to people.

Pete Wishart: Here we go again: another return to Parliament and another attempt by the Government to play fast and loose with the democratic arrangements of the House. This is clearly becoming a pattern, and the nation is starting to get really concerned and anxious about their casual disregard of many parliamentary conventions and scrutiny.
First, we had the horror of the grotesque Henry VIII powers in the repeal Bill. Then we had the Government fixing the Standing Committees of the House so that they could have a majority in each and every single one of them. Now we have all this nonsense about Opposition day debates and what the Government will or will not do in response to them. I think that I have identified the problem with this particular Government: they cannot accept their status as a minority Government. That is the basis of what we have here. They seem to be doing everything possible to try to deny that new reality, but the harder that they do that, the worse it gets for our democratic proceedings and parliamentary structures.
The Government have 317 Members out of a total of 650 Members—48.7% of the membership of the House. They are clearly a minority Government. Instead of fighting that reality, why do they not simply embrace it and accept it, then we can all get on with our business normally, with a minority Government trying to govern in this country?

Douglas Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he is speaking about minority Governments which his party now is in Scotland. When the Scottish National party had a majority Government in Scotland, it passed the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. More than a year ago, when it was in a minority Government, it was defeated by all the opposition parties in a vote and called on to repeal the Act. Can he tell me the status of that? Has his party repealed the Act, or is it failing to respect the Scottish Parliament vote?

Pete Wishart: I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that point. I was going to come on to that, because it is really important to understand how minority Governments respond to defeats in Parliament. The right thing to do is what the Scottish Government do, which is to review, reflect and consult. Let me cite one issue as an example. We were defeated on fracking. What did we do? We did not attempt to ignore that vote. We consulted, reviewed and came back to Parliament with a ban on fracking. That is the responsible behaviour of a minority Government. I will take no lecture from the hon. Gentleman whose party’s commitment to democratic decisions extends to the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) not even voting in the European Union referendum.
There are certain things that a party has to learn when it is in a minority situation in Parliament. The first lesson is that, sometimes, Governments get beat. They get beat here and they get beat in the Scottish Parliament. That is a feature of minority Government and it is alright—it happens. It happens normally in Parliaments right across Europe. This Government should not overly fret about it. They paid £1.25 billion to the Democratic Unionist party to ensure that they had a majority in the event of a threat to their existence. This House must also recognise how we can represent and reflect the democratic will of the people of this country. Sometimes I enjoy being lectured by Conservative Back Benchers about parliamentary sovereignty.

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned sovereignty and respecting the will of the people. Does he respect the will of the people in the two referendums  that have recently taken place—one in Scotland, and one on the European Union?

Pete Wishart: I will tell the hon. and learned Lady what I think about the will of the people. I was elected just a couple of months ago—I won an election. The gentleman I beat in that election is now in the House of Lords as an unelected Scottish Office peer. That is how to reject democracy; that is how to play fast and loose with the will of people—rejected one minute and ennobled the next. So I will take no lectures from the hon. and learned Lady.

Desmond Swayne: I am one of the people as well, and I will conduct my voting in this Chamber entirely on the basis of my own opinion and my own conscience. I decide when and how I vote, not the Government, and on the occasion in question, I chose to deploy my vote accordingly. I was in agreement with the first motion, because the lead I tend to take from my Front Bench was in agreement with it. Why would I therefore choose to oppose it? On the second motion, although I was against the sentiments being expressed, it was clear to me that, in accordance with the statute, however I expressed my opinion, it would make no difference. That is the matter in a nutshell.

John Bercow: Order. I exercised some latitude for the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), not least in light of his starring performance this morning, when he asked the most succinct question, but that was a mini-speech rather than an intervention. I simply take this opportunity to remind the House that the debate can last until three minutes past 6. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has not taken up a great deal of time so far, so this is not directed specifically at him, but I simply make the point that if Members want to speak, they should try to help each other, and that means refraining from, dare I say it, lengthy or self-indulgent interventions.

Pete Wishart: What would we have done without the contribution from the right hon. Gentleman? He does what he wants, as he always has done, and he should make sure he always does that in the future.
I got a bit sidetracked there with the very interesting intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to come back to this notion of parliamentary sovereignty, which is something my friends on the Conservative Back Benches hold dear. It is about expressing the will of the people in this House. Parliamentary sovereignty is the be-all and end-all—Conservative Members are even committing this great indulgence of economic, cultural and political self-harm by leaving the European Union so they can have more parliamentary sovereignty. They should start to demonstrate their commitment to it by recognising that this is a minority Parliament. We are here to serve all the people of the country, and we have to have arrangements to make sure we properly reflect that.
The Government seem to see not being defeated as some sort of virility symbol, as if being defeated shatters their delusion that they somehow have a majority. When it comes to these issues, the Government will have to stop behaving so arrogantly; they will have to accept their minority status and act with a bit of humility.  They went to the people a few short months ago to ask for a mandate and for an increase in their majority; that is what it was all about—they wanted to take advantage of what they saw as the situation in the Labour party. What happened? They came back as a minority—they lost their majority—so maybe responding with a little less arrogance and a little more humility would do them some good.
The second principle of minority Government is that you sometimes have to work harder to get your way. That, again, is what happens in other Parliaments, but we have seen no example of it from the Leader of the House today. There is no point the Government trying to bludgeon their will through in Parliament, as they are currently doing; it is much better to negotiate and make deals to ensure they get solutions. I thought that that was what we were going to get. I will not break the confidence of the Leader of the House by talking about my meetings with her, except to say that when I had my first conversation with her, I was encouraged by what she had to say about her approach to Parliament. She talked about a basis of consensus—trying to get agreement and progress legislation and motions through Parliament on the basis of agreement—but all that seems to have gone. I wish we had the earlier Leader of the House instead of the one who is standing here now.

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Gentleman talks about consensus and agreement, but that is exactly what we reached during that Opposition day debate, and Opposition Members are still not happy.

Pete Wishart: I will move on to Opposition day debates, because I know that is the intended topic of the debate. I do not really understand the Government’s position. Opposition days are a real feature of Parliament. I have been in the House for 16 years and I have always enjoyed Opposition day debates. There is always a bit of tension and there are always good speeches, and they tackle subjects that Governments would not normally bring to the House because they might just get embarrassed —subjects with which they might be uncomfortable. They play an important function in the House, and it is really important that we do not lose sight of their role. The most important thing about Opposition day debates is that they have a conclusion: some sort of decision on the motion is taken by the House. The day that the Government play fast and loose with that arrangement is the day that we really devalue Opposition day debates. We have Backbench Business debates and Adjournment debates. We do not need glorified Adjournment debates; we need real debates that hold the Government to account, and on which we can make a decision and then move on, respecting that decision.
We accept that the votes in question are not binding on the Government. The Scottish National party are a minority Government in Scotland and we know exactly how these things happen: we will get beat, and this Government will get beat. The key thing is that nobody expects them to change their policy or direction on certain issues just because they get beat on a Labour party Opposition day motion—that is the last thing people expect. Nevertheless, the votes on such motions reflect the will of the House, so people expect the Government to respond in a particularly positive way. They should not try to avoid votes or dismiss debates; they should  respond and say something. They should go back and consult, review their position and come back to the House with a new set of recommendations. That is what I think the people we represent want from Parliament and from the Government.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I think we have heard enough from the right hon. Gentleman. He took up about 25 minutes of the available time so I shall move on, if he does not mind.
We on the SNP Benches have a little experience of minority government: we are in our second parliamentary session as a minority Government. We had a minority Government with just two Members more than the second party, and now we are just two short of a majority. In each case we have tended to try to function as a minority Government, respecting the view that we do not have a majority and trying to work in consensus and partnership with other parties. The exercise we are doing around the budget is an example of how things can be done in a minority Parliament.
I mentioned fracking: it is important that we come back to the Scottish Parliament on that with another view. On other issues on which we are defeated, we will consult further and try to address the concerns. That is how we govern as a minority Government. I am happy to talk things through with the Leader of the House to help her to understand better. If she wants to come to the SNP, we can give her some lessons about running a minority Government. If she is having difficulty with it, which it seems she is, she can come and have a chat with us. I will not break the confidence of our meeting, as she did to me at the most recent business questions. She can come and have a chat and perhaps we can talk through some of the issues.

Mike Wood: As we have heard, it has been 12 months since the Scottish Government were defeated, and they are still at the consultation stage, whereas in the four weeks since the House expressed a view on the two motions in question, the Government have announced a policy change on the level of next year’s tuition fees, and they have announced different terms of reference for the public pay review bodies. The Government have done exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking of them in terms of considering and reviewing, and I am sure that those matters will come back to the House.

Pete Wishart: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been listening. I am not making any criticism of the Government—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am not! I am trying to give them some advice about how to do things and I am trying to get their minority status into their head. I am trying to help them to deal with that, so I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to what I have said. It is good that they are reviewing things—that is what minority Governments do, and they should continue—but they also have to allow Opposition day debates to conclude and then vote on them and express an opinion. It is important that our constituents hear us in Parliament deciding on the important issues. It is  important that they know our views, and the only way they are going to find out how we think about a particular issue or subject is if we vote on it. That is the only way they can determine it.
I do not know whether the Government intend not to vote on any further Opposition day motions, but I am not particularly interested in what Paul Waugh has to say in the Huffington Post on a particular day. I would like to hear it from the Leader of the House. Perhaps we can tempt her to say definitively, yes or no, whether she intends the Government to vote on Opposition day motions at some point. I will give her the chance to say whether it will be an option for the Government. [Interruption.] She is shaking her head, or—

Andrea Leadsom: indicated dissent.

Pete Wishart: She is not. That is good, and that is what we expected. All we needed to hear in this whole debate was the Leader of the House say to us, “Well, you know, we did that the first day because we thought we were playing a political game, but we’ll come back and we’ll vote on Opposition day motions.” We will get Opposition days; I would like to think that the Government would come along and vote on them.
We really have to start to get on top of all this. This has been a particularly bad start to the Parliament. I listened to the Leader of the House talking about all the things she did to put in place Select Committees earlier than usual. What utter, utter bunkum. Now that we are back for this long period in Parliament, with sittings right up to Christmas, let us start to show that we respect the political arrangements in the House—the structures and the way we have done things traditionally—and that we can still approach these issues collegiately and consensually, if we can.
The Government also have to get it into their head that they are a minority Government. We have seen no evidence of that yet. As we go through this Session, a little more of a demonstration of where the Government are just now would be useful and good. I hope that we do not have to have any more of these debates. I have been taking part in such debates almost every week for the past few months, and this is something we need to get over. We need to see the Government respecting their position and respecting the traditions of this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: It might be helpful to the House to know that, in an attempt to accommodate everybody who wishes to take part, I am minded at this stage to put a seven-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution. That inevitably is subject to change, but I hope that will not be necessary.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. Like perhaps a number of Members, I was somewhat surprised to find us debating this issue today, when there are so many other things we should be debating, but you are absolutely right, Sir. As the shadow Leader of the House said, you are entrusted with grave responsibilities, and it is only right, when a Member of this House makes what is effectively a substantive complaint against the Government—essentially,  that they disrespect this House—that you should call them to this House. I am grateful for that, because it allows those of us on the Government Benches to set out arguments that, as you will see, more or less demolish the proposition that has been put.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) quite rightly said that we need to look at the words of the motion, which says:
“That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.”
There seem to me to be two ways one can tackle the motion. The first is to look, as he did, forensically at the debates in question, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to yesterday. Anyone listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech would conclude that the Government clearly did not disrespect this House in any way.
There is another way of looking at this, which is to say, “What would be the basis for the charge?” There seem to me to be four things that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland could complain about. The first is, “Are the Government allocating enough days to Opposition debates?” Is he saying that the Government are not taking part? Is his charge that failure to vote is in some way a slight or a breach of convention? Or is he just saying that the Government are ignoring the Opposition motions?
The shadow Leader of the House complained in her speech about the number of times she has to ask for days. The reality is that the number of days allocated to Opposition day debates has not changed since their introduction in 1998. Governments of all hues— Labour, coalition and Conservative—have observed the number of allocated days. Indeed, in the period 2010 to 2017, when the Opposition were entitled to 140 days, they were actually given 141 days. They were also given 24 more days in unallocated business that there was space for, so they cannot really claim that Opposition business is not being allocated the right number of days.
If the charge is about participation, then a number of colleagues from across the House have pointed out that they are participating, particularly on this side of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, on the day in question the Government fielded some of their most senior members. There were 11 speeches from the Opposition Benches and 10 from the Government’s, and in the second debate I think the figures were eight and 17. In both cases we had almost exactly the same number of speeches, so the charge of non-participation, which seems to be the thrust behind some of the contributions today, does not stack up. If this was the only time made available to debate such matters, that would be serious. It is not, of course. Tuition fees have been debated during ministerial statements and urgent questions, and in Westminster Hall. The subjects have been thoroughly debated by this House, and the charge of non-participation seems to me to be very difficult to prove.
The Government, as the Leader of the House said, take their responsibilities very seriously. If the Opposition really believe there is a need for more scrutiny, there is a way to secure more scrutiny and force the Government to defend their case, and that is by debating and voting on programme motions. The Opposition have chosen to debate only 15% of programme motions in the last  seven years. If they really want more time, the Opposition could force the Government to come through the Lobby more often on programme motions, but they have chosen not to do so.
The third charge is that, somehow, by not voting the Government snubbed the House. On the two days that we are talking about, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and others have made the point that snubbing the Opposition was certainly not the reason for the Government’s not voting. It is absolutely true that no Government have ever been bound by convention or the rules of the House to vote on any motion, especially Opposition motions. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is clear that Government—the Leader of the House is, I believe, following this tradition—should consider each motion and debate as it comes. There is no reason why the Government should be committed to voting on any motion, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to resist the temptations offered by the Scottish National party to commit herself to that.

Sylvia Hermon: I am not suggesting that the Government snubbed this House, but the fact that they did not vote on lifting the pay cap left uncertainty for thousands and thousands of nurses and doctors throughout the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] If I may, I will continue. At the end of that debate when the Government did not vote, after the DUP had indicated that it would not be supporting them, there was no point of order to clarify the situation. I have scores of constituents in Northern Ireland, where we have no devolved Assembly. We need a lead from this House, and we did not get one. The problem is not the snub but the ambiguity, because this is not an academic point of argument; it affects people’s lives.

Stephen Hammond: The charge of ambiguity is a serious one, but it does not hold up. The Government Front-Bench team answered that question when they responded to the motion, so I do not think that that charge can really be levelled against the Government.
In the short time that I have left, let me make the point that as a Government Back Bencher, I have experienced the frustration of sitting here with my colleagues until all hours of the night, only to find that no vote takes place. On the question of votes, it is for individual Members to make their minds up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said. We are elected here as individuals, and we can follow our wits, if we choose to do so. We are often urged to do so, and many people choose to do so, but it is for us to make that decision. Equally, it is for the Government to choose, motion by motion, when they should vote.
Finally, Opposition days can be used to raise matters of national importance, but all too often—not necessarily in this case—they are used for narrow party political posturing rather than a discussion of real quality. If a motion is about a matter of national importance, it is often phrased in a way that the Government find provocative or difficult to support. Many Governments have taken the view that they need to note what an Opposition day motion says, but ever since 1978, when the Conservative Opposition twice defeated the then Labour Government, it has become an established custom of this House that Opposition days are nothing  more than advisory, and that they are not actionable. Although the Government should take note of the motions and continue to debate the issues raised in them—I have no doubt that that will happen under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—they are advisory and the Government are not bound by them in any way.
This has been an interesting debate, but what today has shown—my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed this out—is that, in the case of the two debates mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the charge does not stand. If we look behind the four possible arguments for saying that the Government are not listening on Opposition days, it is very difficult to contend that his proposition stands, so I hope Members will vote to defeat it this evening.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) shows how little he understands the matter when he suggests that we will be voting on this, because we cannot vote on it.
We do not have a written constitution in this country, and that is why we need to be very careful about the way in which we operate our conventions. For instance, nowhere, even in statute law, does it say that the Prime Minister has to be a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Commons, or indeed a Member of either House of Parliament. That is not written down, but it is an accepted part of the way our constitutional settlement works.
That is why I say to Government Members, despite all the huff and puff today, that they need to be very careful about how they play around with the conventions at the heart of our political constitution. We have a system under which the winner takes all. Even if a party gets only 35% or 42% of the vote and does not have a majority of seats, if it manages to form the Government it gets to decide when Parliament sits, when the Queen’s Speech is, what is in the Queen’s Speech, what gets debated and how long it is debated for. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we could add extra hours by debating programme motions. We cannot table a programme motion, and if we force a debate on one—

Stephen Hammond: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have not even finished the point I was making.

Stephen Hammond: rose—

Chris Bryant: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could just wait a moment. We do not get any extra time. If we use up time debating a programme motion, we are only taking time out of the main debate, so I will not give way to him on that point.

Stephen Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a different point?

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that I am not going to give way to him on that point.
Only the Government can introduce legislation and be certain to get it debated. Once a private Member’s Bill has been given a Second Reading, it can proceed further only if the Government table the relevant motions, even if it was assented to by the whole House or by a significant majority, as happened during the last Parliament. Only the Government can amend a tax or a duty, and only the Government can table motions in relation to expenditure. It is a case of winner takes all, and that places a very special responsibility on every single member of the governing party.
I worry that this is all part of a trend. Of itself, this is not the biggest issue in the universe—of course it is not—but it is part of a trend in this Parliament since, I would say, 2010. The golden thread that runs through our parliamentary system is government by consent. It is not about the Government deciding everything because they have managed to take it all by winning, but about government by consent and the sovereignty of Parliament. Whatever the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean says—he and I have had many debates over many years—the truth of the matter is that the Government knew they were going to lose the vote and that is why they decided not to vote. That was absolutely clear, and it was what all the Whips were saying throughout the day.
The latest trick that the Government are playing in this winner-takes-it-all system—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) really should not lead with his chin on that issue. Their latest trick is to increase the payroll vote in Parliament. In this country, we have more Government Ministers than France, Germany and Italy put together—or, for that matter, than India, Pakistan and Australia put together. We have a vast number of Ministers. In addition, the Government now have 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, as well as 15 Government MPs who are trade envoys. All this is an exercise of patronage to make sure they hold on to power. If we look at the percentage of the governing party that that has represented since 1992, the interesting fact is that this is now the highest percentage ever, with more than 50% of Government MPs being part of the payroll vote. That is a despicable process for the Government to have adopted.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said that the Opposition should have tabled a motion early in the year, so as to prevent the student fees regulations from coming into force. But the convention of this House, which he knows perfectly well, has always been that if the Leader of the Opposition prays against a statutory instrument—secondary legislation—the Government will provide time, in Government time, on the Floor of the House for a debate and vote within the timescale, so that the legislation can be prevented from coming into force if that is the will of the House. The Government’s Chief Whip refused to do that. When I asked, and when the shadow Leader of the House asked repeatedly, when we were going to get that debate, we were met with a consistent refusal.
This is a big breach of our constitutional rights in this House. In the last 12 instances when the Leader of the Opposition has prayed against, only five have led to the granting of debates and votes, and three of those were debates in Committee, where even if every single member of the Committee, including the Government Whip, voted no, the legislation would still go through because all the Committee is allowed to consider, under our rules, is whether or not the matter has been debated.  In other words, it is the height of cheek—the most brass neck imaginable—to try to blame the Opposition for not providing time to debate statutory instruments laid down by the Government. That is why I say that hon. Members on the Government Benches should think very carefully about this business of whether the Government simply decide, when they think they are going to lose on a motion—a Back-Bench motion, an Opposition motion or any other kind of motion—to up sticks and say, “Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. It’s the kind of motion that doesn’t matter.”
There have been two other Back-Bench motions that I could cite in the last Parliament. One was on Magnitsky, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab); the other, tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), was on circus animals. The Government knew they would lose in both cases. They decided not to vote. So there was a unanimous vote in favour, and the Government have done absolutely nothing.
You should just beware. If you think we are Marxist Bolivarians, what will we do when we have these powers?

Lucy Frazer: This debate purports to be about an important issue. It accuses the Government of the day of flouting the rules of Parliament and it is true that if that were the case, it would be fundamentally objectionable, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, where Parliament makes the laws that regulate our society, and the rule of law provides that no one is above the law, including parliamentarians. It is not the Conservative party that threatens the rule of law; it is the Labour party, because Labour members have, time and time again, stated that they would condone the flouting of our laws, passed in this Chamber. They would condone illegal strikes supported by the trade unions. It is the shadow Chancellor, not Members on the Government Benches, who has threatened the rule of law and our democracy.
This is a debate about procedure, but it is not just a debate about procedure; it is also a debate where the premise is flawed. There is an objection that the Government do not vote on Opposition days, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who applied for the debate, knows––having been part of the coalition Government that brought in Backbench Business debates—there is great value in debating important matters that affect the lives of our constituents without a binding vote or a commitment to take immediate action. Indeed, he is using a procedure in this debate, in this House today, which will have no substantive result other than the airing in public of this issue.

Alistair Carmichael: The objection is not to the fact that the Government did not call the Division; it is that, not having called the Division, they do not then follow the will of the House; and indeed, that now it is apparently to be the Government policy to do so routinely. Does the hon. and learned Lady really not think that obnoxious?

Lucy Frazer: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says the Government did not follow the will of the House. In the debate on public sector pay, the Government said very clearly that they would be flexible on that. Since that debate, the Prison Service and the  police have had a pay increase, so it is completely inaccurate to say that the Government are not listening to the will of the House.
This is the third debate on procedure in which I have taken part in in two years and I have learned that other parties seem to value form over substance. They seem to value debating procedure rather than the issues at stake. In the previous Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on the Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee. In that Committee, we spent much time at the outset listening to arguments from Opposition Members that there was insufficient time to debate the issues. However, looking at the record of those proceedings I can see that on Second Reading, 53 Conservatives contributed as against 13 for Labour, and that on Report, there were 43 Conservative contributions, as against 13 from Labour.
When I knock on doors, not one voter suggests to me that we should spend more time in this House on procedural matters about past debates. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has brought a three-hour debate before this House at a time when there are many more important issues facing our country, such as Brexit—[Hon. Members: “He applied for it.”] He applied for it and Mr Speaker agreed to it. But the issues facing our country are Brexit, the economy, the NHS and education, issues that affect the daily lives of our constituents. It is those issues our constituents want us to discuss and not the procedure of this House.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: This House is rather archaic. Many of these things I can live with: the pomp and circumstance, the wearing of funny clothes—I am one of those who wears their own style—and the walking around with a giant mace. What I cannot abide, however, is when rules and procedure are used, in what seems like an underhand way, to reduce the ability of constituents to hold us to account. Constituents can agree or disagree with their local Member of Parliament, but it is important that they know how their local Member of Parliament views an issue and how they vote on that issue when it comes before them. Voting in that sense is a cathartic process: it allows us to support the process of democracy even if we do not support our particular representative. The problem with not bringing an issue to vote is that it undermines the very process of you, Mr Speaker, hearing the ayes and noes. That will lead to the Opposition forcing votes. It will lead to us wasting time unless it is clear that the silence on the Government Benches is a silence of approval, rather than a silence because they are afraid.
We have heard today that the Government agreed with the two motions, which is fantastic. [Interruption.] On the example we heard about earlier, the House agreed and the Government agreed. I applaud the Government on their turnaround. We heard earlier that in 2009 the Labour Government were defeated on the issue of the Gurkhas—the defeat was quite right in my view. On that very day, the Labour Government came to this House and made a statement on how they would change their course as a result of the vote of the House.

Jim Cunningham: There is another example: the Conservative Government after the coalition were defeated on the vote over whether we  should bomb Syria. The then Prime Minister made a statement from the Dispatch Box to clarify the situation. His words were, “I get the message.” This Government have not got the message yet.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Exactly. It seems that the Government have not got the message that they should be accountable to this House. It is of course welcome that they have announced some minor changes—at the Conservative party conference and to the press lobby—on tuition fees and the public sector pay cap. But the problem with decree through press release is that it reduces the ability of this House to ensure that the detail of the volte-face is actually as the House wished.

Matt Warman: On a simple point of fact, the announcement on the public sector pay cap was a written ministerial statement. It is important that we do not pretend otherwise and that a Government who use legitimate procedures are not misrepresented.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Yes, but the suggested tuition fees amendment was not.
The subject of how we challenge statutory instruments is important in the light of our discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I sat through a lot of those discussions and Government Ministers tried to reassure me time and again—not that they were very reassuring—that we should not worry about processes through the negative procedure. They said that we should not worry about statutory instruments because if the will of the House was clear, the House would have the opportunity to review and rescind, and to ensure that statutory instruments that overstepped the mark would not be allowed on the statute book. However, what we see here is parliamentary jiggery-pokery.

Jeremy Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: No. This parliamentary jiggery-pokery was used not only to ensure that the debate did not come in time to be able to withdraw the statutory instruments, but to prevent a vote in the House. Therefore, the will of the House seems less strong to members of the public. That is the reality of what happened.
If the Government had stood at the Dispatch Box that day and said, “We won’t be calling a vote because we agree on the two issues”, there would be no problem. The problem was that Government Members spent the whole day arguing against the content of the motions, but then did not vote on them. That is the concern. It is fine—in fact, I am more than happy—for the Government to change their mind after listening to our compelling arguments. I applaud them for that, but let us have a statement about how their mind has changed and, therefore, how policy has changed.
It is no good that members of the public are unclear about the position of this House and that people are left in limbo. They need to be able to hold their politicians to account. They need to be able to hold their Government to account, and the Opposition parties and Back Benchers need to be able to do that too. Therefore, I call upon Members of the Treasury Bench to stand up and make  a statement about how and when they reflected on the motion passing unanimously, when they will bring forward the changes called for in both motions and the details of how they will do it.

Jeremy Quin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), although I must put it to him, given his comment about our constituents needing to know where we stand, that when my constituents contact me they always know where I stand. He also put it that the public are unclear about the view of the House. In respect of the two resolutions we are discussing, the House approved the motions, so it is very clear where the House stood. It expressed its view.
It is a pleasure also to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I respect his—I see he is busy.

Chris Bryant: I can do two things at the same time.

Jeremy Quin: He has the better of me. I was genuinely being respectful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know thinks and speaks passionately about the conventions of this place. I am a relatively new Member, but I regard its role in our national life as very important.
I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, had I not looked carefully into the underlying principles of the application made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). First and critically, as he made clear in his application and as was reiterated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), Opposition day motions, if carried, are not and never have been binding de jure on the Government. The precedents are clear. Between 1918 and 2015, there were 120 defeats of Governments, most of them on substantive legislative matters on which the Chamber was exercising its core constitutional role of creating and amending the law of the land.
On those occasions, however, when the Government lost a vote on a Supply day, the constitutional position was equally clear. I greatly enjoyed reading one such occasion—the debate on the devaluation of the green pound held on 23 January 1978. I was especially delighted to hear the two contributions, made from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who I am sorry is not in his place. One was:
“Leave the Common Market. That is the answer.”
The other one was:
“Get out of the Common Market. That is the answer.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1071-73.]
He is nothing if not a beacon of consistency. The Labour Government having lost the vote, there was no suggestion in the closing remarks of either the Opposition spokesman or the Minister that the decision would be binding on the Government.
This to me is core to the issue. Clearly, the House can amend primary legislation, including, critically, money Bills, and pray against secondary legislation, debating such matters either in Government time or on Opposition days. What we are discussing here, however, is not an attempt by the Opposition to amend legislation, but the manner outside legislation whereby the Opposition examine  and challenge Government policy. This, too, appears well established. The 1981 Select Committee on Procedure quoted, approvingly, an earlier Select Committee of 1966:
“The real nature of Supply Days was the opportunity provided to the Opposition to examine Government activities of their own choice”.

Antoinette Sandbach: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are Backbench Business debates in the House that change policy, such as the baby loss debate, the subject of which we are in theory due to debate later today—but which we might not debate because of this debate? Is it not right that policy can be changed without a vote? There is no requirement for a vote to change policy.

Jeremy Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be brief so that we can get to that very important debate, which I know matters to many of our constituents. She is absolutely right that examining and challenging Government policy can lead, rightly, to a change in that policy. That is mirrored by the people who turn up to these debates. On the two Opposition days that particularly irked the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, two Secretaries of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the speakers were matched one for one on either side. I attended part of both debates and can confirm that the Opposition were certainly doing their best to challenge and examine Government policy, as is their right.
There are good reasons why those debates ended as they did, as was illustrated by my two right hon. Friends for forests, my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in their interventions. To imply that the whole process was fruitless because there was no physical Division at the end—a vote that we know would have been non-binding—belittles not only that debate but potentially the Backbench Business Committee debates, those in Westminster Hall and, to a lesser extent, the work done in Select Committees, where good contributions are made to the workings of the House and policy examined without Divisions being required.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Jeremy Quin: I am glad that I now have the hon. Gentleman’s attention.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has always had my attention. It has been not far off the unanimous view of the House for some time now that we would like legislation on circus animals. Several hon. Members have tried to advance it, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and, in the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), but on every occasion the Government systematically let the Backbench Business debate proceed and then had a vote on it, as if to suggest that something would then happen. When the House expresses a view, even if that is because the Government have refused to vote, I think that the Government should listen. Surely the hon. Gentleman must too.

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman was very fortunate in his placing in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, so the solution to that problem may be in his own hands, although I understand that he believes that he will present more important business to the House, which I look forward to debating in due course. There are other means by which business can be debated, of which private Members’ Bills are but one.
In his application, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the motion on Gurkha settlement. I appreciate that he did so in all sincerity, and the subject was also raised by the shadow Leader of the House. The fact that the debate took place eight years ago may be indicative of developments in Opposition day debates over that period. The Labour Government did amend their position following that debate, but my recollection, like that of the shadow Leader of the House, is that there was a great deal more to that issue than what was said during the debate. I recall, as, I am sure, will other Members, the single-handed pincer movement—if such a thing is possible—that was inflicted on the Minister, Phil Woolas, by Joanna Lumley, and the phenomenal way in which she prosecuted the issue.

Greg Knight: Is not my hon. Friend’s case, in essence, that as long as the Government have the confidence of the House, when the House gives advice, it is for Ministers to decide how much of that advice to accept?

Jeremy Quin: It is undoubtedly the case that the Government should listen to the House and take the advice of the House, and must then decide themselves how to prosecute the business concerned, because they are accountable to the electorate and have that mandate.
The report of the Gurkha debate is intriguing. It was, I think, a unique case that arose eight years ago. The motion only got through this place because of—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—
“brave members of the Labour Party”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 989.]
The brave members of the Labour party who supported the motion and defeated the Labour Government inevitably included the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, obviously, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Leading the Ayes was the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Clearly Phil Woolas was a forgiving soul, as he subsequently nominated the right hon. Lady for the leadership of his party despite being a campaign manager for David Miliband, on the ground that “David wants to be inclusive”. I hope that moderate members of the Labour party will not get into the habit of nominating colleagues for the leadership of their party for the wrong reasons; who knows who they would end up with?
My view is that the Gurkha settlement debate was in a noble cause, far removed from the simple binary party-political debates in which the Opposition propose declamatory resolutions to spend taxpayers’ money without having the responsibility of funding those decisions. The Government must, of course, present Ministers to the House to defend and explain their policies, but on specific—and I mean specific—party-political issues, the Government believe that not trooping everyone through  the division Lobbies is the right decision in the case of a non-binding, non-legislative resolution, and the Government must retain that right.

Tom Brake: I rise to make what Members will be pleased to hear will be a mercifully short contribution. I am afraid that I must use some of my few minutes to correct something that was said by the shadow Leader of the House; I am sure that she would like that to be done at the earliest opportunity. She said that it was the Conservatives who introduced the Backbench Business Committee, but of course it was not. It was the coalition Government, consisting of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. That followed the work that a Labour Member of Parliament, Tony Wright, had completed, but it is unfinished business. Let me pre-empt a possible intervention from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who, I know, is pressing for the establishment of a Committee to resolve the way in which business is presented in this place. I hope that the shadow Leader of the House did not mind my correcting her on that point.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was rather generous to the Leader of the House in saying that she could not possibly answer questions about business during business questions. That is her role, and I am sure that her predecessors Andrew Lansley and William Hague, with whom I worked, would have been very happy to answer a question on the subject of the business of the House.
The Government are clearly developing an addiction to closing down debate and scrutiny, or simply disregarding the outcome of any debates. We have heard a lot about Opposition day debates, so I will not touch on those. We have heard about the Government packing Committees to their advantage. We have heard a lot about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and rightly so, because of course there are Members of this place—they do not appear to be here today, with perhaps one honourable exception—who have preached at great length about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, often repeating the same speech, but when it comes to that Bill their enthusiasm for parliamentary sovereignty appears suddenly to have evaporated and it is no longer the critical matter it used to be. We see that in the Henry VIII powers and in how much policy the Government intend to push through in secondary legislation.
I want to focus briefly on the 50 sectoral reports that the Government have commissioned on the impact of Brexit. Whether one is a remain supporter like me, or a leave supporter like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I think that we all agree that it is important that the Government go public on what the impact of Brexit will be. I feel that it will be very negative, and I am sure that he thinks that it will be very positive, but at the moment we do not know because we are not allowed to see those 50 reports, which the taxpayer has paid for.
I am afraid that situation is often reflected in answers to parliamentary questions on the subject. I would have thought that by now every Department would know how many pieces of EU legislation they were going to have to transpose into domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill process. However, if Members  ask that in a parliamentary question, what answer do they get? Some Departments are willing to hazard a figure of between 800 and 1,000, as the Department for Exiting the European Union has done, but others have no idea and do not give an answer at all. I think that the Government are very scared about allowing Parliament to scrutinise the Brexit arrangements in full possession of the facts.
In conclusion, the Leader of the House has had many opportunities in this debate to clarify the Government’s position on Opposition days, but she has chosen not to do so. We are left with the rather nasty suspicion that this is a Government who care little about parliamentary conventions, less about parliamentary scrutiny and nothing at all about parliamentary sovereignty.

Douglas Ross: I contribute to this debate from quite a privileged position, as someone who has served both my Parliaments: as a Member of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood in Edinburgh; and as a Member of our Parliament here in Westminster in London. Of course, in both Parliaments, I have served under minority Governments, so I am well placed to speak about how Oppositions deal with debates in both Chambers.
We hear a lot from our Scottish National party colleagues about minority government here at Westminster, but very little about the fact that their party is in minority government in Holyrood—we heard a couple of sentences about it today from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but not much before that. It is therefore worth repeating that Nicola Sturgeon went into the last Scottish parliamentary elections with a majority and came out with a minority, largely because the number of Scottish Conservative MSPs more than doubled—from 15 to 31.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said many interesting things. After 13 minutes of criticising and attacking the Government and Conservative Back Benchers, he told us that he was being helpful and consensual. That was the only helpful thing he told us, because up until that point it did not seem that he was being particularly helpful or consensual. He also said—I wrote this down because I was very interested—that nobody expects the Government to change policy after being defeated in an Opposition day debate. That was quickly followed by an intervention from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who disagreed entirely. That just shows the confused position among the Opposition parties in today’s debate. It is perhaps because the party of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has a minority Government in Scotland that he does not believe that Governments should change policy due to a defeat in a Chamber.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: It is nice to hear about the Scottish example, but I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should change course when they are defeated in a Chamber, instead of just hearing him attack the SNP, which I do not have much truck with either.

Douglas Ross: I am a Scottish Conservative Member representing a Scottish constituency, so if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will speak about Scottish  issues in the House of Commons. I will also speak about Governments being defeated when this Government are defeated. They have not been defeated in this House, but the party of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has been defeated. I want to come on to the point that I tried to make when I intervened on his speech. Hansard will show that I asked clearly about the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, but that the hon. Gentleman never once mentioned that piece of legislation in response.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Ross: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman is now going to tell me what has happened to that piece of legislation that needed to be repealed.

Pete Wishart: It is interesting that all that Theresa’s Scottish Tories ever do is to get on their feet and talk about the Scottish Parliament. In case it has evaded the hon. Gentleman’s attention, he was elected to serve in this House. As for the 2012 Act, a review is under way to examine hate crime legislation in response to the vote in the Scottish Parliament. That is how a minority Government should respond to a defeat in a Parliament.

Douglas Ross: I am sorry, but as the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood what is happening in Scotland with this piece of legislation, it is important that I provide a potted history of what happened. It was introduced by a majority SNP Government in 2011 with no support from the Opposition parties. Legal experts told them that it was wrong, a senior judge went on to say that the legislation was “mince”, and then a Labour MSP’s consultation on repealing the legislation attracted 3,000 responses, 70% of which said that the Act should be repealed. What is happening now? I will tell you. In November last year—

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman held out the prospect for the House that he would provide a potted history of what had happened in relation to the relevant piece of Scottish legislation. I think that he has somewhat stretched the definition and meaning of the word “potted”, and what I am politely indicating to the hon. Gentleman is that he should gravitate towards the thrust of the debate, rather than occupy the tramlines.

Douglas Ross: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You unfortunately stopped me mid-thrust because I was about to come to that point. The final element came in November last year, when I led a debate on the matter in the Scottish Parliament, which then voted to repeal the 2012 Act. The Opposition parties voted for the repeal, but nothing has happened in the past year. The point that I am trying to get across is that people cannot state that what the Opposition parties say here must be respected when they do not respect what such parties say in another Parliament, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about that.
Parliament gave a view on the two motions that prompted today’s debate. There was a full discussion, with Government Members matching Opposition Members speaker for speaker, and the House did not dissent from the motions. The House expressed an opinion. Our constituents would rather that we focused on the crucial issues that are coming up later this evening instead of spending hours discussing procedural matters.  Our constituents would be better served by our getting on to those debates, which I look forward to listening to in the near future.

Christine Jardine: I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for his contribution, but I promise to confine my remarks to affairs of this House. I apologise to colleagues who, like me, perhaps thought that they had nodded off and woken up somewhere else. It is almost exactly four months since we were all elected to this place—many of us for the first time—on a pledge to serve our constituents and the country, but I find myself increasingly dismayed by the attitude and flagrant disrespect for the values of the democratic process that are displayed by those on the Government Benches. First we were presented with the Henry VIII power grab in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and now it seems that the Government intend simply to allow Opposition days to happen and then ignore them, paying no respect to the views of the House, elected Members or, by extension, the electorate who sent us here to oppose and scrutinise. It is not good enough, Mr Speaker, and if we continue along those lines, we will not be serving democracy.
At the moment, politicians spend a lot of time debating and lamenting public apathy, searching for ways to engage the younger generation, and asking why they find so little in the work we do to spark their enthusiasm for public service. Perhaps we had our answer, or at least part of it, during the Opposition day on 13 September, with its debates on NHS pay and tuition fees—hardly unimportant issues. If any young person was visiting the House on that day or watching the TV coverage, what did they witness? Petty political game playing—not dissimilar, I have to say, from what we have seen from those on the Government Benches today.

Alex Chalk: In my experience in this House, Opposition day motions are all too often used as an opportunity to lay party political traps that end up misleading my constituents. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in those circumstances, the Government should take the discretion not to indulge in parliamentary game playing?

Christine Jardine: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that what he was doing was party political game playing rather than listening to the Opposition. Surely the point of an Opposition day debate is that the Government listen to a view other than their own. That is the view of the electorate—they think that we are here to serve them, rather than to play games. If they had tuned in on the 13th, they would have seen a Government simply paying lip service to the question with no intention of taking anything on board or of allowing any credence to be given to the debate, lest it should challenge their established view.

Alistair Carmichael: On that point, when the Government agree at least partially with an Opposition motion, it is open to them to table an amendment. They chose not to do so last month.

Christine Jardine: Indeed. Why should such behaviour encourage any kind of faith in the political process—“Yes, we’ll let you have your say, yes you can have a vote, but we won’t take any notice of what you say”?  Where is the democracy, where is the scrutiny and where is the respect for those who elected us? They surely deserve better.

Wendy Morton: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the new hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). She helpfully reminded us that it is almost four months since the general election, but the point about the general election of which I want to remind the House is that on 8 June the people of this country—my constituents and everyone else’s constituents—had a vote, and the result was that the Conservative party got 56 more seats than the official Opposition. We have a working majority. The Queen’s Speech has already been approved, setting out—[Interruption.] Whether the Opposition like it or not, that sets out the legitimacy of this Government’s programme of work.
The Government also have a record of empowering Parliament, as we have heard throughout the debate, and that means Back Benchers, too. As we have heard, in 2010 it was the Conservative-led coalition Government who established the Backbench Business Committee, which is really important for Back Benchers on both sides of the House. When I sat on that Committee, I saw the range of topics proposed by Members of all parties for discussion. In the couple of years in which I have been a Back Bencher, we have had interesting and useful Back-Bench debates in the Chamber.

Chris Bryant: My only point there is that it is a bit of a pain if we cannot make the debates mean anything because the Government decide to abstain from any vote and not to follow through on a decision of the House. There is an important difference here. Although the Government did not fully implement this from the Wright proposals in 2010, despite promising to do so by 2013, we could have, as the Scottish Parliament has, a parliamentary bureau to decide all the business of this House. Would the hon. Lady support that?

Wendy Morton: I just go back to my point about Backbench Business Committee debates, because they have an important place in this Chamber and can make a difference, as can general debates. We had a very meaningful and useful debate yesterday evening on Gypsies and Travellers, a topic that Members on both sides of the House had been raising—

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Wendy Morton: I am going to make some more progress.
Members on both sides of the House had been raising the issue throughout the summer. Given the Minister’s statement at the end of that debate, I sincerely believe that the Government were listening and are pointing to some ways forward. As a Back Bencher, the issue concerns me in my constituency, so I will continue to press it, as I hope other Back Benchers will.
As we have heard, following this debate and another piece of business, we will have a debate on baby loss, which touches many people, again on both sides of the  House. The issue has received a lot of awareness in the Chamber, starting from an Adjournment debate that was held a couple of years ago. We have had an Adjournment debate and Back-Bench debates. There is an all-party group on the subject and a ten-minute rule Bill on it was introduced. We have not had a vote as a result of any of those things, yet a private Member’s Bill is to be introduced on the subject. Let us hope that that legislation goes through this place and that we will be able to remember that it started from the Back Benches. That is not one of my private Member’s Bills. I have had two successes, but I would still like to think I could get a hat-trick.
All I am trying to do is to highlight the importance of debate in this place so that we have a chance to express our views. On the day in September that today’s debate is very much focusing on, I had that chance to make my views and thoughts on student tuition fees heard, and that was what I did. That does not have to mean that there will be a vote every time; I had my chance to have my say. What concerns me most is that we have now spent 14 hours talking about procedure. I am not blaming you, Mr Speaker—far be it from me to do that; I would never be called to speak again! The fact remains that 14 hours have been granted for speaking about procedure, but what really matters is what my constituents want to hear. They voted in June for this Government and for me to get on with the job of representing them in this place and raising the issues that matter to them, not to talk about procedure.

Hugh Gaffney: I wish to be brief, Mr Speaker. Let me thank you for accepting the debate proposed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).
I am particularly interested by this debate because I am a newbie in the House and still have a lot to learn. I arrived in Westminster very much of the view of Parliament being sovereign and this House of Commons reigning supreme. This Government’s blatant disregard for Parliament and for the fact that we are here to vote on issues that will impact the lives of the people who sent us here is a disgrace. If we think back to those two debates in September, it was clear that the Government knew they were heading for a big defeat—not for defeat’s sake, but because they are on the wrong side of history. Their weasel words on public sector pay show very little understanding of what is happening outside this place. The motion was very clear that any potential increase in tuition fees in England and Wales should be scrapped. It was clear, sensible and pragmatic. The failure to vote on the two Opposition day motions shows that the Tories are running scared. That is clear for everyone to see, including those outside this House.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was right to note the deal between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party. If the 10 DUP members continue to support Opposition day motions—I sincerely hope that they do—what does that mean for agreement between the two parties?
I know that the Leader of the House is not a close friend of the Prime Minister, but a nice and easy answer to this would be to the benefit of the House. How stable is this Government and how can we have any faith in them when the £1 billion deal hangs by a thread?
Between January 1978 and September 2017, there was only one Government defeat on an Opposition motion in this House. I might have been a mere boy then, but I remember that the Government changed their policy the next day, rightly reflecting the expressed will of the House. When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, I hope that she will address that point.
I also think that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was on to something when he intervened on the former Government Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I agree that when Parliament speaks, the Government should listen. I know that, deep down, Government Back Benchers agree with that statement, but they are running scared of the Whips and, more importantly, of facing the people in our constituencies and community centres, and across all four nations that make up our United Kingdom.
The way that the Government have approached Parliament since the election has been a disgrace. As the shadow Leader of the House noted in her important contribution, this two-year parliamentary Session was announced in a press release on 22 June. The Leader of the House should have come to this House, and she knows it. The failure to increase the number of Opposition day debates was a further disregard of Members.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would not be spending 14 hours discussing democracy if it were not for Government Members disregarding democracy?

Hugh Gaffney: Yes, I agree with that.
In many ways, this debate is silly. I say that because there are so many important issues facing my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and others across Scotland and the rest of the country. We should be doing more. We could be talking about the pressures faced by our hospitals and vital public services, the fact that the jobcentre closures by the Department for Work and Pensions have the potential to destroy livelihoods and the vitality of town centres around the country, the botched roll-out of universal credit that even John Major wants halted, and, of course, Brexit, which will affect everyone.
The Government should be ashamed of themselves. They should learn that, ultimately, this House is sovereign—

Jim Cunningham: I was very interested in the justification from the Leader of the House for the Government’s actions on those two votes. We noticed that she sloganised for Conservative Central Office by blaming the last Labour Government for running the country into debt when she knows that it was her friends, the bankers in America, who caused the problem.

Hugh Gaffney: All I know is that I am skint and that I agree with my hon. Friend.
As I said, the Government should be ashamed of themselves. They should learn that, ultimately, this House is sovereign. Rather than engaging in this playground approach of sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the strong and loud voices of Members from all parties, they should show a bit of respect—that is all we ask for.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There are three remaining would-be contributors. The way that things have worked out means that we have slightly more time—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will be sad that it did not happen for him, but we have heard him many times before, and we will hear him many times again. The limit will now be eight minutes per Back-Bench speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene all over the place because he enjoys the mellifluous sound of his own voice, we will wait in eager anticipation of that prospect.

Peter Bone: I would say to the new hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) that if he thinks this Government are bad in relation to Parliament, he should have seen the Blair Government. However, I have a hint that we may be friends, because I think he said something nasty about Whips, which is always a good sign for a new relationship.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate, which is about Parliament versus Government. It is impossible for us as Back Benchers to get this issue debated, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for introducing it. Although there was a little party politics on the Opposition Benches, there were also some very good speeches about parliamentary sovereignty, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said everything I would have said—which is worrying me and probably worrying him.
There were some arguments today that were just plain wrong. The argument that this time is taking up time we could be using to debate something else is nonsense. We can extend the parliamentary day, and we have extended it. We could have extended the parliamentary day by three hours today. The Government chose to introduce two statements today, which took up parliamentary time. So the argument is completely false.
There is nothing more important than discussing the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of Parliament in relation to the Executive. The Executive control virtually everything, and legislation can, effectively, be brought forward only by the Government. We talk about private Members’ Bills, but if we pass a private Member’s Bill on Second Reading and the Government do not provide a money motion, it is completely stuffed. So everything is completely in the control of the Government.
The fact that the Backbench Business Committee was introduced—it came out of the Wright reforms, although its debates were supposed to be in prime time, not stuck on a Thursday—is a credit. However, I remember sitting next to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the Tea Room and saying, “Isn’t it wonderful, Prime Minister, that we have a Backbench Business Committee and substantive motions the House can vote on?” He was having a cup of tea, and he spluttered it all over the place—he had not quite realised that point. However, there is no point having a substantive motion and having the will of the House expressed on a particular issue if the Government then choose not to take action. In my view, the Backbench Business Committee is the thing that has been ignored the most.
We have to come to a situation where, if the House expresses a view, a Minister must respond to that view in a statement. On the two debates that are being discussed, it does seem that the Government have changed policy subsequently, which is good, but would it not have been better if a Minister had come to the House and said, “As a result of that debate, we have thought about the issue, and this is what we propose to do”? I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that it becomes a formula that if the House expresses a view, the Government should respond to it. That does not mean that they have to accept everything, but they should come to the Dispatch Box and say what they are doing on the issue.

Jamie Stone: I thought the day would never come when a newbie Lib Dem would agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but I like the cut of his jib. I think there is something more dangerous here, and I will probably incur the wrath of the House by turning to the territory of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), but in the place where I once served for 12 years, we had private Members’ debates of an evening, to which a Minister would reply and after which, to be honest—I have to be careful about parliamentary language—damn all happened. That was dangerous for democracy in Scotland because the general public started to lose faith in the purpose of that kind of debate, and when we lose that, we are in danger of losing something incredibly important.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for that intervention, but may I give the new Liberal Democrat Member some advice? He should never agree with me if he wants to progress in his party.
Let me go back to another false argument that was used today. There was criticism of the Liberal Democrats for not being here for certain votes, and I have on occasion pointed that fact out in this Chamber. However, if we extend that to say that only people in this Chamber who know what the debate is about can go and vote, we would have quite a lot of different results in this House. It is not a bad idea.
A business of the House committee would solve a lot of these problems. That was proposed by Wright. It was supported; it was Government policy. Unfortunately, it was not Whips’ policy, and that is both lots of Whips. Many of the problems we have would be solved by having such a committee.
I am not sure whether anyone from the Government will be winding up the debate, but it would be useful to have a commitment from them on this matter. On an Opposition or a Backbench business day, if the House votes on something—we did vote; it is just that no one opposed the motion, so there was no recorded Division—that is the will of this House of Parliament and we should have a Government response.

Mark Harper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Bone: Give way to a former Chief Whip? Alright.

Mark Harper: Presumably, my hon. Friend is asking the Government to say something only if the House votes for something that is counter to the Government’s  existing policy. My argument was that the motion on the NHS was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which is of course why the Government did not oppose it.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the former Chief Whip for his intervention. As usual, he will not expect me to say anything other than that I completely disagree with what he said. I am saying that, if the House expresses a view, a Minister should come to the Chamber. The Minister can stand up and say, “I absolutely agree with the motion”, if that is what it is, but that should happen if, on an Opposition day, on a substantive motion, the motion is carried.
The issue of circus animals is the best example we have had in the House. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority in the House wanted something done about circus animals.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bone: I am sorry, I do not think I have time to take another intervention.
We really do need this to be done: the Government must take notice of what the House decides. It is a fact that, when the Backbench Business Committee came into being, the Government used to take it seriously. They used to vote on the motion. Then a former Leader of the House decided that it would be a good wheeze just to ignore votes and carry on. The reason we did not vote against the motion on circus animals—we can deny it as much as we like—is that we would have been defeated. It would be good in this parliamentary democracy if the Government on occasion were defeated. It would not be the end of the world and the Government would take note of it. That lot on the Opposition Benches would cry about it, but so what? Let us get used to it. This is Parliament. The people sitting here are not members of the Government—they are MPs sitting on the Government side. No one tells me how to vote.

Mark Harper: That is true.

Peter Bone: The former Chief Whip knows that. If I had wanted to, I could have been the only one to oppose the motion on that particular day. However, I did not feel like that.
This is not a wasted debate. It is a chance for parliamentarians to say that Parliament should come first and the Government should listen to what the House says when it votes.

Alistair Carmichael: With the leave of the House, I shall say a few words. I would not often expect to say this, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). There was much in his speech with which I had little difficulty agreeing with. On the question of a business bureau for the House, again, that was in the Wright report. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, however, that to proceed with that without looking at other areas of House procedure that require reform would not be sensible. There is a strong case for revisiting the remaining work to be done in respect of the Wright report.

Chris Bryant: Something suddenly springs to my mind. Was not the right hon. Gentleman the Lib Dem Chief Whip who prevented the parliamentary bureau from coming into force?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed, I was part of the Government then—I was the deputy Chief Whip at the time. That was a decision taken by Government as a whole. Of course I was part of that, as were other Ministers.
Others have said that this debate was unnecessary. On one view, I am not without sympathy for that opinion. The debate could have been avoided if the Leader of the House had given us a clear steer on Government policy when I raised this matter with her on 14 September at business questions. She could have denied that it was Government policy to avoid Divisions that they would lose and then to ignore the decision of the House on non-binding motions. She chose on 14 September not to do so. She was given the opportunity again today to deny that this was the Government’s policy. She chose again not to do so. If she wishes to intervene on me now to be clear, I will take her intervention.

Andrea Leadsom: I think I have been clear. The Government look case by case, and voting is a matter for the House. What the right hon. Gentleman is looking for is an assurance that those on the Government Benches will always oppose Opposition—

Alistair Carmichael: indicated dissent.

Andrea Leadsom: That is exactly what he is after, so that he can write his press releases. We will look, case by case, at Opposition motions and make decisions accordingly.

Alistair Carmichael: I can assure the House that it has been some years since I wrote my own press releases. What I want is an assurance that where the House reaches a decision—this is the point that the hon. Member for  Wellingborough made—that decision will be acted on and respected by the Government. We have had no assurance on that point for the third time today. The House will draw its own conclusion from that failure to deny.
From any Minister of the Crown, that would be regrettable. It pains me to say that, from the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the House’s representative in Government, it is a dereliction of her duties. Those on the Treasury Bench can continue to avoid this issue if they wish, but if they do, it will keep coming back. Inevitably, because this is a democracy, the day will come when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches and somebody else is sitting where they are now. I fear that it is only then that they will understand the damage that they are doing to our House and our constitution now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government's policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.

John Bercow: We shall shortly be proceeding to the next business, and I am keenly anticipating that, in a matter only of moments, the Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day. However, in order for us properly to proceed with that business, there is a requirement for the presence of relevant Ministers and shadow Ministers, and—for I am not casting aspersions—there is also a requirement for an occupant of the Chair, as the House will be sitting in Committee and the Speaker does not chair the proceedings in Committee, as Members will know. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) is gesticulating in a very gentle way from a sedentary position that the Minister is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am happy to acknowledge that. [Interruption.] The occupant of the Chair is here and I think others are also here. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

EUROPEAN UNION (APPROVALS) BILL

Considered in Committee.
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
Clause 1

Approval of draft decisions under Article 352 of TFEU

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2.

Margot James: This is a short Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. All four draft decisions rely on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and therefore require the approval of Parliament. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 provides for exemptions in order to avoid the requirement for an Act of Parliament, but the decisions with which we are dealing do not fall within any of the exempt purposes.
The first two decisions will enable two countries, the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia, to be granted observer status in the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The third and fourth decisions are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the EU and Canada on competition enforcement. Clause 1 provides for approval by Parliament of those four draft EU legislative decisions. Clause 2 concerns the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement date and short title. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, subsection (2) provides that the Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent and subsection (3) provides for the Bill’s short title.
We are content that all four decisions are reasonable and proportionate, and that they will not result in any additional financial burdens on the UK. I urge hon. Members to agree to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill.

Bill Esterson: The European Union (Approvals) Bill is a two-clause Bill, as the Minister has said. It will approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union in relation to the participation of the Republics of Albania and Serbia as observers in the work of the Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the signing and conclusion of a new agreement between the EU and Canada regarding competition law, including the exchange of information between the EU and the Canadian Competition Bureau. Approval of those decisions by means of an Act of Parliament is necessary under the European Union Act 2011 in order for a Minister to vote in favour in the Council.
The Fundamental Rights Agency replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2007. As the Europa website states, the agency advises EU institutions and national Governments on fundamental rights, particularly in the areas of discrimination, access to justice, racism and xenophobia, data protection,  victims’ rights and children’s rights. The agency’s areas of work have been determined through a five-year framework, and the main priority areas include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. EU candidate countries can participate in the FRA as observers. The Bill approves two draft decisions on the participation of the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia as observers in the FRA’s work. We support the draft decisions concerning the participation of Albania and Serbia in the FRA.
Competition is vital to our economy, the success of our businesses and the prosperity of the people of our country, and the encouragement of healthy competition is vital. National Governments have a vital role in ensuring that a fair market exists, and not just a free market. The way in which Governments work together is also crucial in determining whether markets are free, fair or otherwise. The decision of the Trump regime to impose punitive tariffs on Bombardier will have a disastrous effect on the workers and communities of Northern Ireland, and on the economy. Such tariffs, if they are allowed to stand, exemplify the use by companies such as Boeing of market dominance to destroy competition.

Bob Seely: I am not sure that I like Donald Trump any more than anyone else does, but does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a regime and an Administration? He calls the Trump regime a regime, but in fact the Trump Administration is an Administration. It is a democratically elected Administration, not some sort of hard left Venezuelan or Cuban-style regime.

Bill Esterson: I do not think there is any danger of confusing Donald Trump’s Administration or regime with anything of the hard left.
That Boeing can act as it has done—initiating trade disputes in a segment in which it does not compete—with the full support of a protectionist US Administration demonstrates the need to ensure that every effort is made to deliver healthy and fair competition. The reliance of some Ministers on the US for trade and for our own economic success has been brought into sharp focus by the actions of the Department of Commerce. Notably, this applies to the International Trade Secretary, who seems to think that our relationship with the US is the answer to all our prayers, but it clearly is not.
On Second Reading, the Minister told the House:
“The absence of the possibility of exchanging information with the Canadian Competition Bureau is regarded as a major impediment to effective co-operation. The proposed changes in the existing agreement will allow the European Commission and the Competition Bureau to exchange evidence that both sides have obtained in their investigations. That will be particularly useful in all cases in which the alleged anti-competitive behaviour affects transatlantic or world markets. Many worldwide or transatlantic cartels include Canada and, via Canada, the Commission will gain a good opportunity to have access to additional information concerning those cartels.”
I note that she also told us:
“The existing competition agreement with Canada does not allow the sharing of confidential information, but the new one does.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 1048.]
Many people regard the actions of Boeing in pushing the US Department of Commerce towards levying 300% tariffs on Bombardier, a competitor with a technically  superior product, as a pretty strong example of the type of anti-competitive behaviour that the Minister spoke about on 4 July. Indeed, given Boeing’s battle with Airbus, it very much appears to be an attempt to destroy further competition in a market in which it has long been the dominant player.
The Canadian Government and the EU have both been working hard to address the actions taken to reverse the protectionist, anti-competitive actions of Boeing and the US Government. I trust the Minister will agree that any action to help all those connected with Bombardier in the UK, who are now fearing the worst, would be widely welcomed. The European Commission has noted that the absence of a power to exchange information with the Canadian competition authority is now an impediment as co-operation between the two parties has increased. Co-operation between the Canadian Government, the UK Government and the EU has never been more important, and what is happening at Bombardier is a reminder that such increased co-operation can only help.
Fair competition means avoiding anti-competitive practices, whether at home or abroad, including through the creation of cartels, or through mergers and acquisitions that distort the market. The undercutting and exploitation of workers in smaller businesses, the use of zero-hours contracts, the creation of false self-employment about which workers have little choice, the unfair treatment of smaller businesses by banks that will fund only those with liquid assets and delays in the payment of invoices by larger firms are all examples of anti-competitive and exploitative practices. In relation to such practices, Governments should find ways of intervening, nationally and internationally, to create a level playing field. Governments should be the partner of business and of the workforce, and they should encourage those wishing to start and to grow a business.
Preventing competition from being undermined matters, so co-operation between competition authorities and the sharing of information between jurisdictions is a key part of preventing anti-competitive practices. There is an existing agreement between the EU and Canada on competition law. It provides for the reciprocal notification of cases under investigation by either party where such cases may affect the important interests of the other party. It provides for co-ordination of enforcement activities and the provision of assistance where both parties have an interest. It provides the ability of one party to request the other to take enforcement action if there is reason to believe that anti-competitive activities carried out on its territory are adversely affecting the other party’s important interests. It also provides for the exchange of information subject to confidentiality provisions and conditions of use, including on current enforcement activities and priorities, economic sectors of common interest, policy changes that either party is considering and other matters of mutual interest relating to the application of competition law.
Labour will seek for us to remain a member of common European agencies that benefit the UK, such as Europol, Eurojust and the Erasmus scheme. To those, we can now add having access to the information shared between the competition authorities in the EU and in Canada and, for that matter, between those in the EU and in other countries.
The emphasis from the Labour Benches is on jobs, the economy and retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union. Being able to share information about competition, to prevent anti-competitive practices and support fair competition is consistent with maintaining the best possible relationship with the EU and access to our biggest customer as a country—the customer being the EU, which accounts for 44% of our trade.
On Second Reading on 4 July, the Minister told the House, in answer to my question whether the UK could remain part of the Fundamental Rights Agency after Brexit:
“The Government are looking at the UK’s relationship with all EU bodies, including the FRA, as part of the exit negotiations.”
Further to that answer, may I ask her, three months later, whether the Government have a view yet on whether we will remain in these EU bodies and, indeed, which ones we will remain in during transition, and secondly, whether the UK wishes to remain in these bodies after transition?
In answer to my questions about the competition arrangements, the minister told me on 4 July:
“The UK Government will be free to enter into their own arrangements to share information with Canada directly, and the UK and Canada will need to negotiate any such agreement.”
I also asked about international agreements after the UK leaves the EU, and whether this agreement provides a model. She told me:
“The UK will be free to enter into international agreements on competition”
and she told me that the Government
“believe that this agreement is a good model.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 1074-75.]
Can she tell me what happens after we leave until new arrangements have been agreed? What transitional arrangements do the Government have in mind for sharing information about competition with Canada and other countries? Perhaps, following my comments about Bombardier, she might want to say whether, in her opinion, the sharing of information with the Canadian Competition Bureau might be of help in addressing the problems caused by Boeing’s actions and by the imposition of punitive tariffs and the return to protectionism that we have seen from the United States Government.

Andrew Bowie: It has been said by some that this Bill lacks substance, that this is a perfunctory debate and that it has little significance. I think that could not be further from the truth. For our actions here in the House this evening demonstrate beyond any discernible doubt that up to and until the point that we leave the European Union, we will continue to use our rights and obligations as full members of that institution, demonstrating that in the United Kingdom the European Union will retain the closest of friends, the strongest of allies and the most dependable of partners.
In that spirit, with our desire to do the right thing by our neighbours and echoing the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday when she reaffirmed our commitment to a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for Europe, it is right that we approve the decisions of the European Union Council. Few other single acts could better signal our desire for a peaceful and prosperous Europe than the granting to Serbia and Albania of observer status in the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency.
We cannot forget that it was less than 20 years ago that British and other NATO troops were deployed in the Balkans in the midst of an horrific conflict that we hoped we would never see the likes of in Europe again. While I am sure that all in this House would agree that more should and could be done, with the Council of Europe among others, regarding the pursuit of war crimes in Serbia, and on judicial reform, anti-discrimination policies, illegal migration, organised crime and protections of fundamental freedoms, it is surely a mark of the huge progress made in all these areas by the respective countries that the Council of the EU has seen fit to recommend that they be granted observer status as part of their EU candidate status.
Using our rights and obligations to the full until we leave, as we should, it is right that the UK supports Albania in its accession efforts and Serbia in its reform projects. Our giving consent to these—

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about encouraging the enlargement of the EU across the Balkan countries. On that count, does he also support the application of countries such as Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia?

Andrew Bowie: Each application has to be looked at in its own individual context. It is obviously not for me or this House to decide where each state is in terms of its candidate status, but for the Council of the European Union. I know that that is going through at this very moment.
The third and fourth decisions of the EU Council are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the European Union and Canada on competition enforcement. Canada is one of the United Kingdom’s oldest and closest partners: we have been allies in conflicts for over a century and we have a shared past, strong family links and shared values. As if to underline that closeness, Canadian and British troops, as well as European and other NATO service personnel, are working closely, side by side, as part of Exercise Joint Warrior along the north coast of Scotland. It is because of this closeness, and our shared history and values, that many in this House and beyond find it so frustrating that it has taken over eight years for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement to be agreed between the European Union and Canada. Even then, it almost came unstuck due to the complex internal machinations of Wallonian politics—I was going to make a comment about unchecked devolution, but I have thought better of it. I just wonder whether a UK-Canada free trade deal might take a slightly shorter time.

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for reminding us that as well as the co-operation with Canada, subject to this proposed Act, a much more significant and detailed co-operation agreement was finalised not so long ago. He will be aware that while the Bill has been offered a potential six hours debating time on the Floor of the House, the CETA deal was agreed without a single minute’s debate on the Floor of the House. Does he believe that that allowed the House to properly influence such an important trade deal?

Andrew Bowie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was well before my time in this House so I would not feel entirely comfortable commenting on that. This debate is not about CETA.
The decisions taken in the EU Council being approved by us today for agreement by the European Parliament will replace the 1999 competition and co-operation agreement. As the Minister said, the agreement replicates and builds on the provisions in the earlier agreement by allowing the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau to exchange evidence obtained during investigations, including confidential information and personal data. These decisions will further help British businesses thrive internationally, as both Canadian and European business benefit from strong international competition law. On anti-competitive business practices, we must continue to work with Europe and Canada after we leave the European Union. We on the Conservative Benches know that the only way to reliably increase long-term living standards is through trade. Fair competitive trade is, as we know, the catalyst for reducing poverty, spreading prosperity and fostering innovation.
An outward-looking global Britain, as we will be, must continue to fight fair for business practices across the globe to ensure that free trade works for everyone. I hope the European Union recognises that the approval of its agreements is done in good faith, because it benefits citizens and businesses across the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada. In approving these decisions, we not only signal our commitment to the future of a peaceful and prosperous Europe, reaffirming our position as its closest and most dependable friend, but signal our continued desire to promote fair competition, free trade and an ambitious future for ourselves and our partners across the world.

Peter Grant: I am happy to speak in support of the Bill. As I mentioned in my intervention, it seems ironic that something that appears to attract little opposition and not even a great deal of concern across the House could, if necessary, be granted a total of six hours of debate—tonight’s allocation and what we had on Second Reading—on the Floor of the House, yet massively important and much more contentious EU legislation, such as the CETA deal, is guaranteed no time whatever on the Floor of the House. The Government were eventually dragged kicking and screaming into an upstairs Committee room for an hour and a half after the CETA deal had been signed off but before it was finally ratified. That was after months, if not years, of determined efforts by the European Scrutiny Committee, whose scrutiny process was ignored and overridden by the Government on that and on so many other matters. I will come back in a moment to explain why that is so vital, but it seems ironic that something relatively non-contentious requires an Act of Parliament before the Minister can sign it when Ministers from all parties have quite happily signed much more contentious EU documents in the past without any appropriate reference back to this House.
I want first to speak about the applications from Albania and Serbia. We should enthusiastically welcome the movements in those two countries. I am one of a fairly small number in here who can remember the days when Albania was like the North Korea of Europe. Even before the fall of the iron curtain, even when the  Stasi were in charge in East Germany and even when the Ceausescu regime was in charge in Romania, Albania was seen to be the most isolationist place of all. We should welcome the fact that it now wants to move closer to the more modern family of European nations. And look at where Serbia has come from in the past 20 or 25 years; we should enthusiastically welcome the fact that it is now asking to be allowed to co-operate much more closely in the protection of human rights and the eradication of racism and xenophobia. We should encourage the Serbian people and Government to continue on that journey.
The co-operation with Canada makes sense. We are two major trading economies, both of which accept that anti-competitive behaviour on a global scale damages everybody except the handful of billionaires who own the anti-competitive companies. It makes sense for Governments, nation states and groups of nation states to work together. A single country on its own these days is often not big enough to take on the big global economic superpowers that are today’s multinationals. We have to work together to make ourselves big enough to be able to stand up to the big bullies of multinational business. We should certainly look for this kind of co-operation with Canada and, similarly, with other major economies in the future.
There are consequences to the way in which this Government and previous Governments have failed to respect Parliament’s role in scrutinising everything Ministers did on our behalf at the European Union. I say it like that deliberately because the job of the European Scrutiny Committee has never been to scrutinise what Europe is doing. It has always been to scrutinise what Ministers are doing in Europe on behalf of the House. From the couple of years in which I was a member of that Committee, it was perfectly clear that Governments in the past have done everything they could to avoid that scrutiny. I am sorry to say that the House often appears to have been supine in its failure to hold Governments to account for that. That, more than anything, has allowed the wildest of all myths to gain currency: the myth that European civil servants are allowed to make laws without any input from this Parliament. It is simply not true.
When this Parliament has been denied the opportunity to comment on European laws, it has not been the European Union that has denied us that opportunity; it has been British Governments, past and present. Had they not done that—had they held themselves properly to account for their actions in Europe and come back to this House saying, “We don’t agree with what the Europeans want to do. What do you, as Parliament, think?”—the public would not have been made to believe that Europe was acting over the top of this Parliament. They would not have been led down the path that we are heading down. We could have avoided that comical—if it was not so tragic—irony.
Serbia and Albania were each in danger of being seen as international pariahs at different times and for different reasons. These two countries are now taking the sometimes difficult, but momentous, steps towards fully rejoining the worldwide family of democratic nations. At some point along that journey, they will meet the United Kingdom heading in the opposite direction. That is a tragedy that should have been avoided had this Parliament and previous Governments done their job properly.

Andrew Percy: I have spoken during a previous stage of this legislation and am happy to do so again. Before I begin on the Bill, I have to take issue with the shadow Minister’s use of the phrase “Trump regime”. This really is the sort of childish politics that we have come to expect from the Opposition. Never mind various shadow Ministers popping along on certain strong leaders’ particular TV channels without seemingly any notice at all—no criticism of that. But describing the democratically elected Government of our biggest ally and friend as a regime is silly, childish politics. The shadow Minister could do better, but he showed why the Labour party is unfit to hold any sort of ministerial office at any time soon.
I take issue with a couple of things that the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said. It is not true that Parliament has not discussed, debated and questioned Ministers on CETA. I declare an interest as a previous vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on TTIP, now the all-party parliamentary group on transatlantic trade. We have had Backbench Business debates in which TTIP has been debated and the CETA deal has been smeared by certain Members as a Trojan horse for American interests, which is a deep insult to our Canadian friends and allies. Ministers have responded to those debates, and of course the issues have been raised time and again in questions. I partly understand his point, but it is not the case that we have not examined and discussed the CETA provisions in depth in this place, both in the Chamber and elsewhere. It is a consequence of its nature that the trade treaty with Canada passes in this form. There is nothing unusual about it. It is part of our constitutional system.
I also take issue with one other thing the hon. Gentleman said, which in my mind was the biggest nonsense I have heard for some time: that the reason the British people voted to leave the EU was that the British Parliament, even in cases of the direct applicability of EU law and an activist European Court of Justice, has not got in the way of things forced on Britain, even sometimes against the wishes of the British Government. It was a bizarre argument. I suppose it is just another example of people failing to accept the democratic will of the people. Seven out of 10 of my constituents voted to leave the EU. They have pretty much been smeared since the referendum campaign for daring to vote a different way from certain establishment types in this place.

Peter Grant: I will not rise to some of the nonsense the hon. Gentleman is speaking. Will he confirm whether he is familiar with the resolution of the House requiring Ministers to get either clearance or an agreement to waive scrutiny from the European Scrutiny Committee, and will he confirm that when the International Trade Secretary—I think it was him, but I cannot be sure—signed CETA, he did so knowing he did not have the Committee’s approval? The resolution does not say it has to be discussed at a Backbench Business debate or by an APPG; it quite clearly says it has to be cleared by the Committee, but it was not at that time—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We are a little more lax because this is Committee stage, but I kind of forgot the hon. Gentleman was intervening rather than making a speech. I should not have let him go on for quite so long, but I am sure he has made his point now.

Andrew Percy: I wish to forget that the hon. Gentleman was speaking, given, again, the nonsense he was trotting out that in some way this is Parliament’s failure. He clearly does not understand how European decision making has evolved through the various European treaties over the years and how the role of this House in that legislative process has been diminished. He is a member of a party that wants to retain decision making in Brussels, rather than repatriate it to the UK, so it is a little difficult to swallow being lectured about parliamentary democracy by a representative of a party that wishes decision making to remain in Brussels.
I am delighted, as I was at previous stages, to support the Bill. It is important, as we exit the EU, that we continue to be good partners in Europe, and if it is the will of Serbia and Albania to join the EU in the future, it is not for us to get in their way. Regardless of whether we are in favour of leaving or remaining in the EU, we will all wish them well as they embrace the values that we in this country and our allies in Europe hold so dear. It is important for their own stability that they be allowed to progress unimpeded down the path they have chosen. Also, by actively supporting the Bill, we show what we wish to be after we have left the EU: good partners with Europe. As a proud Brexiteer, therefore, I am more than happy to support a Bill that might well pave the way for the expansion of the EU.
On the provisions as they relate to Canada, the Minister was unable, quite reasonably, to say whether we would wish to participate in these arrangements in the future. That will of course be a matter for our final arrangements with the EU. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) set out a position, and the Opposition have set out any number of different positions on Brexit, all of which they appear to be capable of maintaining at the same time. That is an interesting approach to such an important issue.

Bob Seely: How many positions do we think the main Opposition party have taken? I have lost count. Is it five, 10, 15? Where have we got to?

Andrew Percy: I only got a C in GCSE maths, so I am afraid I cannot do such advanced sums involving so many numbers at any one time, but it is certainly a lot, and it is certainly the case that the position taken depends on which shadow Ministers—be they impressive or unimpressive—pop up on the television screen.
Let me now deal with the broader relationship with Canada. This whole process—not only through the agreement that we are discussing, but through CETA—has been an important indicator of how we may wish to do business with Canada in the future.

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech. This agreement is a good start, but, as an advocate for opportunities for future trading arrangements with Canada, does he agree that there is potential to be even more ambitious?

Andrew Percy: I absolutely agree. I am delighted to have been asked once again to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, as I was previously until I had the unfortunate experience of being a Minister for a year. I was passionate about the deal that was negotiated. As hon. Members will remember from our work on the  Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, I have been a strong advocate in the House for improved trade relations between this country and north America. I should add, despite being a strong advocate for CETA, that CETA is a classic example of the European Union way of negotiating a trade deal that does not necessarily reflect the peculiarities and the particular circumstances of our economy.
I think—and the Canadians have been very positive about this—that although it would be sensible for us to continue to apply CETA during the immediate period after we have left the European Union and to use it as a starting position, we can be far more ambitious. After all, 40% of our merchandise comes into the EU from Canada. We are the biggest recipient of Canadian foreign direct investment in the EU, and we are the biggest foreign direct investor in Canada among EU countries. It is certainly the case that we can be more ambitious, and aim for more than what has been achieved so far through CETA, although it is a good start and a good base. I welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Ottawa, where she established a bilateral trade working group with Prime Minister Trudeau and his Government. That was a good step forward, especially in the eking out by officials of where a deal could lie in the future.
I want to make a case to the Minister that I have made at earlier stages. I hope he will take it on board, because it is the crux of my speech, as it was at those earlier stages. While it is important that we maintain our relationships with the federal Government, I think that the one thing we have learnt from the CETA process, on both sides of the Atlantic, is how important—particularly in a Canadian context—engagement at a sub-federal, sub-national level really is. I urge the Minister to ensure that we learn the lessons of how we engage with provincial Governments, who are so important to the success of any future trade deal with Canada. We need to ensure that, as well as continuing our bilateral relationship through the working group that we have established through the federal Government in Canada, we are actively working with those provincial Governments, a number of whom have representatives and trade offices in the United Kingdom, and we need to ensure that we learn the lessons of any failure to do that through CETA.
I have little else to say, other than, again, to wish the Bill every success.

Vernon Coaker: This is a Bill that I think we can all support. It is small and we have consensus but, as other Members have said, it is still a significant measure. I refer, in particular, to the decision to grant Serbia and Albania observer status at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
One of the EU’s great successes, which I think the House should celebrate, notwithstanding the decision to leave, is its support to progressive movements in many former Soviet bloc countries in eastern Europe. Many of those countries are now full members of the EU, but many others, although now parliamentary democracies, are still seeking to move forward in a range of areas, as the Minister reminded us, such as in combating sexism, racism, homophobia and conservative nationalism in the worst sense of the term. It is important that we reflect on that in this debate.
Only 20 years ago, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) mentioned, this country supported Kosovans. We saw ethnic cleansing in that part of Europe, just a few hours away from Heathrow. We thought that ethnic cleansing had been banished, and that it was impossible for that to occur again in Europe after the horrors of the second world war. The instability of the situation threatened the wider region. It has taken Serbia and Albania 20 years to reach the position in which they can be granted EU observer status.
There are still significant challenges. I recently met representatives from Albania at a conference in Rome on slavery and human trafficking, and we were reflecting on the challenges that the country still faces—I am not as familiar with Serbia, but I know that other Members are. All that I wanted to do was stand up in this House and say that the British Parliament thinks about and understands the people who are seeking to bring about progressive change in their counties, sometimes in very difficult circumstances.
There is a question for us, if and when we leave the EU—without getting into the divisiveness of whether or not we should—of how we can continue to support progressive movements that are seeking to tackle some of the problems in Serbia and Albania, and indeed in counties such as Montenegro. The Government will need to consider how to approach that. That sort of consideration can easily be lost in our debates on the EU, but it is of fundamental importance.
Serbia and Albania have made massive advances, but there is still a long way to go. The granting of observer status is another significant step forward. The people in those countries who are seeking to advance the causes of sexual equality, anti-racism and a nationalism that does not remind us of the horrors we have seen before need our support, and they need to know that we are interested, that we care, and that we will support them in their endeavours. The Bill is small, but it is crucial to us all.

Bob Seely: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I will hopefully pick up on a couple of his points. I will speak briefly in support of the Bill, and specifically Serbia and Albania’s admission to observer status in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. That is important for us, but it is extremely important for those two countries, particularly Serbia.
Whether we like it or not—we clearly do not, because we thought that it had ended about 20 years ago—we are in something of a cold war with the Russian Federation, or at least with its leadership. The aggressive cooling of relations was advertised in President Putin’s Munich speech back in 2007, and it could be said that there was a gestation period of some 10 to 15 years before that during which the forces of proto-communism and socialism, hard-line nationalism, and even an aggressive, virulent fascism coalesced around an illiberal hostility to the western world. Whether we like it or not, there is a battle for Serbia’s future and, broadly speaking, there are two models for where the country is going. One is pro-EU and involves democracy, individual rights and hostility to minority oppression. It is not a perfect system—it could be said that a little more adversarial politics would be no bad thing—but those things are critical to a civilised society.
As the hon. Member for Gedling was saying, the other model that the Serbians face is the one that the Russians want: hard-line nationalism; hostility to individual rights; perhaps a celebration of a sort of pan-Slavism; and aggressive propaganda against NATO, the EU and “gay Europa”, as the Russian official media would have it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned conservative nationalism, but it goes beyond that—it is a virulent form of illiberalism in almost all forms. It is almost proto-fascist, although it gains support from both sides, with avowed fascists and avowed communists having a similar social agenda involving antagonism towards homosexuality and what they perceive as deviance, and a slavish hierarchical acceptance of an order that we would consider stifling and deeply unpleasant.
Examples of the active destabilisation that has sadly been engaged in in the Balkans include the recent attempted coup in Montenegro, which was allegedly carried out by the GRU—Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate—and the handing out of Russian passports to Serbians in the Balkans. The aim of that is to give the Russians the ability to interfere in politics in that part of the world and, in the worst-case scenario, to create the destabilising, small-scale conflicts that have marked Russia’s behaviour in the former Soviet states. There is also economic and political pressure in mainstream Serbia to try to get the country, and powerful individuals within it, to turn away from a broadly pro-western, pro-EU model.
What can we do about that? From my experiences in former Soviet states, the easiest things are probably free trade and free movement—all those things with the word “free” in—as well as support in every conceivable way for civil society, which the EU’s fundamental rights will help to grow. That is the fundamental basis on which democracy will be strengthened on the basis of our alternative—a broadly pro-western, liberal alternative —with a rejection of more aggressive, destabilising nationalism. For those reasons, the Bill is somewhat important to us, but it is extremely important to the Serbians.

Paul Scully: We are still a member of the EU, so it is right that we proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible. We are not talking about leaving the EU on bad terms, so it is right that we spend time considering such cases as good members of the EU. Two of the four procedures that we are considering under the Bill involve giving Serbia and Albania observer status in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The agency replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It collects data about fundamental rights and seeks to engage the public and civil society on tackling such issues. That sounds to me very much like the work of the Council of Europe. I have returned this morning from Strasbourg, where the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is still going on. That body needs a lot of reorganisation and work to bring it up to scratch. However, there was mention earlier of what we might do post-Brexit to engage with such agencies, and it occurs to me that there would be an opportunity, if we were so minded, for us to consider how we might bolster an organisation such as the Council of Europe and wrap things up, rather than duplicating effort.
I think that the last time I was in Strasbourg was during the April session, and I opened up my locker yesterday to find my speaking notes from that trip. The Council of  Europe building, which sits next to the Strasbourg European Parliament building, is essentially mothballed. There is a lot of waste and a lot of duplication, and we could work with our European colleagues and partners to ensure that we streamline things and focus on the frontline of protecting people’s fundamental rights. This debate will affect many millions of people.
Albania and Britain have some quite odd but big links. C. B. Fry was offered the monarchy of Albania, which he turned down, giving rise to the reign of the wonderfully named King Zog I. Norman Wisdom is also fêted in Albania; I think he has a statue in Tirana. The reason why I know these two bits of pub quiz trivia and little else about Albania was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant): Albania has been a very closed country for a long time. It is important that we work however we can to open up that country and keep it progressing, joining the international community in the fullest possible way and protecting people’s rights.
I welcome the accession of Serbia and Albania to the agency, but I also want to say a word about the Canadian aspect of the Bill, as we consider competition law ahead of the ratification of the CETA deal. I have been lucky enough to travel around the world over the past few years to places such as Bangladesh, Burma, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Taiwan, and they have all been looking at how they can work with the UK through free trade deals. I am excited about the prospect of having free trade with as many countries as we can. I do not care if the EU is involved in this free trade—we need to widen it out so that we can break down barriers wherever they exist. Working on CETA and against anti-competition procedures can only be a good thing for our European partners. Although we might not be around in the EU to benefit from the CETA deal, it is only good for European and global trade that we should push this Bill through.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading

Margot James: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
The brief explanation that accompanied the clause stand part debate in Committee covered all the points that need to be made about this short Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so fully, and I am  grateful for their support for the measures. I wish the Bill an equally swift passage through the other place and on to Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Grahame Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I would like to pay tribute to a loyal servant of this House, Trevor Ford, who has been a Doorkeeper for more than 20 years and is retiring today. He is from my region; he was actually born in Gateshead, but is a proud red and white Sunderland supporter all the same. He served with great distinction in the Royal Air Force from 1969 to 1992 and completed tours in both Northern Ireland, during the 1970s, and West Germany. In 1996, he became a Doorkeeper here in the House of Commons. Many of us will know that Trevor has worked at almost every post in and around the Chamber; he has worked in the Members’ Lobby, at the back of the Speaker’s Chair, in the Strangers Gallery and, more recently, in the Special Gallery. He has been the Bar Doorkeeper and has led the Speaker’s Procession on many occasions. He is a thoroughly well liked, thoroughly decent individual, and he has served this House with great distinction for 21 years. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to thank him for his loyal service and wish him well on his retirement.

Eleanor Laing: On a technical matter, I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for raising that point of order. It was, of course, not a point of order for the Chair, but I am delighted that he took the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is Trevor Ford’s last day in his current office. On behalf of everyone in the whole House, I would like to add our very grateful thanks to Trevor Ford, who has carried out his duties with great dignity over many, many years. All of us who are elected to this House know very well, every minute of every day, that we could not do our duties if we did not have the support and absolute loyalty of the other servants of the House, who carry out their duties so well. We appreciate that what Trevor Ford has done over many years often goes without notice, but we notice all the hard work and all the dedication. I am absolutely delighted that the House has this momentary opportunity to pay tribute to Trevor’s many, many years of service. I should just say for the record that while I have been saying this he has managed to stand to attention the whole time—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] It is unusual that we can manage to pay a tribute such as this, but let me give our very sincere thanks from the whole House. We wish Trevor all the very best for the future.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

Philip Dunne: Before I start the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I am delighted that you were able to pay tribute to all of our Doorkeepers and, in particular, to Trevor, on his last day here.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week.
I am personally very pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, having participated in last year’s debate on baby loss. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had in this Chamber, as Members from both sides of the House gave expression to their own experiences. That helps to send a signal outside this place of the significance that we accord this, not just within the Department of Health and the NHS; Members of this House sympathise with the many members of the public who go through such experiences. It does this House a good service when Members who feel able to do so place on the record their own experiences. It is right and important that we continue to raise awareness of the devastating impact of baby loss.
I wish to restate at the outset this Government’s commitment to providing high-quality bereavement care and to reduce the numbers of babies who are lost too soon through miscarriage, stillbirth or other causes such as sudden infant death syndrome. I pay tribute to all those who are sharing their personal experiences this week. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince), who are in the Chamber today, and all members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which they co-chair, for achieving so much in raising awareness during this past year.
I wish to update the House on some of the initiatives that the Government and the NHS have put in place since last year’s debate to improve safety, reduce stillbirths and other adverse maternity outcomes and improve bereavement care. I believe that all hon. Members support the ambition of the Secretary of State to halve the rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 2030, and to achieve a 20% reduction in rates by 2020.
Shortly after the debate last October, the Secretary of State launched the safer maternity care action plan, which set out additional support for the maternity and neonatal services working to achieve that ambition. The plan set out a range of initiatives on five themes. First, there is a focus on leadership, with the establishment of local, regional and national maternity safety champions to promote professional cultures, teamwork and continuous improvement. Every trust with maternity services has pledged to appoint a maternity safety champion, and 88 out of the 134 trusts that provide maternity services now have named leads.
Secondly, there is a focus on learning and best practice. This includes the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle to reduce stillbirths, which was launched by NHS England in March 2016. Saving Babies’ Lives brings together four elements of care that are recognised as evidence-based and/or best practice: reducing smoking in pregnancy; risk assessment and surveillance for foetal growth restriction; raising awareness of reduced foetal movement; and effective  foetal monitoring during labour. The Department has also funded Sands and Best Beginnings to develop and promote the “Our Chance” campaign to give parents knowledge and confidence to maximise their chances of healthy outcomes.
Thirdly, there has been a focus on multi-disciplinary teams with an £8.1 million maternity safety training fund, which is designed to ensure that staff have the skills and confidence they need to deliver world-leading safe care. All 134 trusts with maternity units have now received funding and are implementing training packages. Many of those are being delivered by the charity Baby Lifeline, which I met this morning to learn some of the benefits that this training is bringing to improving safety, reducing error, and helping patient outcomes.
I visited Leeds teaching hospital a couple of weeks ago and heard from midwives about their multi-disciplinary training programme “Deliver me safely” in which they and doctors undergo training together in the recognition that human factors can contribute to harm in maternity systems. These simulations focus on situational awareness and team interactions, challenging some cultural hierarchical attitudes, which I am afraid can be prevalent in parts of the NHS, and encouraging everybody to speak up if they have safety concerns.
Lastly, there has been a focus on innovation, with the launch of a maternity safety innovation fund of £250,000, which has supported 25 local maternity services to create and pilot new ideas, and of the national maternal and neonatal health safety collaborative to build local capability in quality improvement and to provide structured support for local teams. One example of this is the safer films project at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, which is developing staff training films, using headcam devices to show interactions with clinicians from the mother’s perspective. The patient’s view of the drills undertaken around her allows clinicians to look back at the impact that their activity, including how they communicate with women and their partners, has on the patient.
Just last month, the Secretary of State hosted a roundtable with 25 key partners across the health system to discuss evidence and current NHS clinical practice on supporting women to have safe births. There has been an enthusiastic response to the Secretary of State’s ambition, with a range of initiatives developed by national and local NHS organisations, royal colleges and charities. We will continue to work with our partners to align these initiatives with the work of the maternity safety action plan. I am happy to report that we are on track to achieve our 2020 ambition. The stillbirth rate in England has fallen from 5.1 per 1,000 births in 2010 to 4.4 in 2015. The neonatal mortality rate was 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births in 2015, down 10% from 2.9 in 2010.
I would like to touch briefly on the importance of learning from when things go wrong in clinical care. Many parents I have spoken to have made it clear they want maternity and neonatal services to learn from the deaths of their babies so that other families do not have to go through the experience of losing a much-loved and wanted child if that can be prevented. Recent publications from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—found that some local reviews of stillbirths and neonatal deaths were of poor quality.  Input from parents or independent experts is not routinely sought, and there is insufficient information to understand the quality of care provided.
To improve the quality of those reviews and to learn from them, the Department of Health, together with the Health Departments in Scotland and Wales, has funded the development of a national standardised perinatal mortality review tool to support systematic, multidisciplinary reviews of the circumstances and care leading up to every stillbirth and neonatal death. The tool, which will be available at the end of this year, will also support clinicians to talk with parents about the care review and how they can contribute to the process.
Last month, I laid the draft health service safety investigations Bill in Parliament. This Bill will take forward the work of the current independent healthcare safety investigation branch, which came into operation last April. Under the proposals, HSIB will have far-reaching access so that it can investigate serious safety incidents or risks to patient safety; help to develop national standards on investigations; and provide guidance and training to improve investigative practice across the health service.
Earlier this year, we also consulted on proposals to introduce a system of consistent and independent investigations for all instances of severe avoidable birth injury, along with access to ongoing support and compensation for eligible babies through an administrative scheme. The public consultation into a rapid resolution and redress scheme for severe avoidable birth injury concluded at the end of May, receiving more than 200 responses. We are currently in the process of listening to people’s views, and we aim to publish a formal response soon.
Turning to bereavement care, a clear message that we heard last year, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I am pleased to see with us this evening, was about the need for a bereavement care pathway to ensure that all families experiencing baby loss receive the highest quality of care, no matter where they live.
Since last year’s debate, the Department has funded Sands to deliver a national bereavement care pathway. I am delighted that 11 wave 1 pilot sites were announced yesterday. I know from the experience of my friends and colleagues that care in bereavement is best described as patchy. In some cases, I could use a less flattering adjective. There is no doubt that we need to do more to raise the training of staff and the facilities available to look after families who go through a bereavement in a hospital setting, and indeed to provide care and support to those who suffer loss outside a hospital setting. That is an important initiative.
Earlier this year, Sands, NHS England and the London maternity clinical network published a new maternity bereavement experience measure. That tool aims sensitively to enable parents whose baby has died to feed back about the care they received. It also aims to support services to learn from the experiences of bereaved parents and identify where local improvements may be needed.
Sands is also working on a project for NHS England on the role of the bereavement midwife. The project will make recommendations for the remit of the role of the bereavement midwife and give guidance on the support structures required around the role.
Since 2010, the Government have invested £35 million in the NHS to improve birthing environments, including better bereavement rooms and quiet spaces at nearly 40 hospitals to support bereaved families. Whenever I visit maternity units, I ask to see the bereavement suite. I am always impressed by the quality of the suites, by the feedback from families and staff alike and by how the commitment of many families who have gone through such terrible loss has often led to them raising funds to help to create better bereavement facilities in hospitals.

Anna Soubry: I commend the Minister for his excellent speech. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Forever Stars, which is exactly the sort of charity that he has described. It was started by two of my constituents, who sadly lost their baby, Emily, who was stillborn. They have raised about £200,000 for two suites. A third is on the way, and they are now fundraising for counselling services for the siblings of babies who have not survived.

Philip Dunne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and thank her for drawing that to the House’s attention. That is one of the most significant examples of fundraising for such suites that I have come across. I pay tribute to the family involved and to the efforts to raise funds for the counselling of siblings, who go through a traumatic experience as well.
I conclude by reiterating that the Government are fully committed to reducing the number of babies who die during pregnancy or in the neonatal period, and to providing support for bereaved families.

Patricia Gibson: I am delighted to participate in what is now the annual debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week, although, sadly, the only reason why such a debate and such a week of remembrance are necessary is to mark the 3,500 babies stillborn each year across the UK, with one in three of those stillbirths occurring at full-term. That of course does not take into account the babies who die within a year of birth.
All the experts, including Professor Jim Thornton, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Nottingham, agree that
“For an otherwise healthy baby to die undelivered near term is, with hindsight, an easily avoidable event. Research to make it avoidable in practice is a priority.”
That is why debates such as this, and any and all measures to highlight stillbirth, are vital.
Although the UK’s stillbirth rate has fallen slightly in recent years, it remains unacceptably and stubbornly high. For too long, this taboo was left in the shadows, too difficult, too upsetting to talk about. As politicians, we all know, what is not discussed, what is not acknowledged, is not addressed and, if not addressed, it cannot be improved. We in this House have been and will continue to work to break that deafening silence. That is our duty on behalf of all those trapped in the isolating silence of grief. Some of us in the Chamber today have experienced that silence first hand.
I think back to 9 June 2016, when I had a Westminster Hall debate on stillbirth, which was hugely emotional, not just because of my own experience but because of the realisation that so many of our babies have been lost over generations, with parents isolated in grief, as this was something that was never talked about in our society, except in whispers. However, since 2016 we have come quite a way. The all-party group on baby loss has done so much to ensure that the issue stays firmly on the agenda. Gradually, as a society, we are becoming more willing to acknowledge this awful event, which affects 3,500-plus babies every year in the United Kingdom, with all the devastation, grief and fallout that it inevitably brings.
Since 2016, I have been in contact with a number of stillbirth organisations such as Sands and Safer Births UK—in fact, too many to mention. Early on, I became convinced that if we accept the analysis of the experts, such as Professor Jim Thornton and others, that for an otherwise healthy baby to die undelivered near-term is, with hindsight, an easily avoidable event—why would we not accept what the experts tell us?—then surely it makes sense to have full investigations when otherwise healthy babies do die undelivered near-term. One third of babies across the UK who are stillborn die at the end of the pregnancy. One in three—this is something that requires serious attention.
That is why last year I asked both the Secretary of State for Health in the United Kingdom Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland, Shona Robison MSP, to instigate coroner inquests in England and fatal accident inquiries in Scotland when stillbirths at full term occurred in an otherwise healthy baby. I appreciate that such processes are expensive, complicated and difficult, but if we consider the lessons that could be learned—what has been missed, what was overlooked and what could have prevented the loss of a baby so close to birth—that can inform good practice and improve the care for future babies. Logically, the need for inquests or fatal accident inquiries would surely diminish gradually over time, as fewer babies would be lost. Of course, we would not just be preventing the loss of babies late in pregnancy either; the lessons learned would inform practice and improve it across the whole maternity service at any and every stage of pregnancy.
When I lobbied for that, I was told by some that it was simply not doable—that I should spend my efforts improving practice in other areas of maternity care: surely it would be best to focus on, for example, ensuring minimum and consistent standards of care across the board. Well, yes and no. The minimum and consistent standards of care that everybody in this Parliament seeks should be embedded in improvement and research, and the use of coroner inquiries and fatal accident inquiries could be a hugely important part of that. It is not an either/or question.
I am hugely heartened by the fact that, after an initial refusal, the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland, Shona Robison MSP, has agreed that the Crown Office in Scotland should investigate whether there could be fatal accident inquiries for babies lost late in pregnancy. Such a move is not about bringing prosecutions but about learning lessons, informing practice and making sure that when our children are about to be born but something goes wrong, we find out why and use that knowledge to make other babies safer.
Make no mistake: this is a monumentally significant step forward, which has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. I do not know why, but it means that so many who would be comforted by it may not even know that it has happened. However, the significance of this development cannot be overstated. If, after consideration, the Crown Office in Scotland decides for whatever reason that this measure cannot be implemented, at least we will know where we are. We will know what obstacles we are dealing with and can set about removing them. I am also convinced that this measure will mean that fewer of our babies die. When that is shown to be the case, I am hugely optimistic that a similar measure will be adopted in England. That, I feel, has been a huge step forward in the 16 months since my first debate on stillbirth. Credit must also go to the campaigners who have worked hard to achieve this.
This coming Sunday, 15 October, is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day and also would have been my wee boy’s eighth birthday. It is very important that his death, and the deaths of all the babies who have been lost, should not have been in vain. The campaign goes on, so that other babies do not have their lives ended before they even begin.

Lisa Cameron: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent and emotive speech, and she is conveying an important message about inquiries. Does she agree that it is also extremely important that early miscarriage is well researched? I know from my own experience of early miscarriage that when it happens, people say, “It’s just natural, and there is nothing that can be done.” But the more we look into it and research the causes, the more we can prevent that grief.

Patricia Gibson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If we start our research at the end of pregnancy and work back the way, I think we will be able to spot things much earlier in pregnancy as we learn the lessons that were missed at the end.
No parent should have to bury their child without knowing or understanding why they did not live. That is what drives me on, and I know it drives on many of us who are taking part in this debate. The tragedy of the loss of so many of our babies is that it does not have to be this way. To change that must be, in the words of Professor Jim Thornton, our “priority”.

Will Quince: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House for going above and beyond to secure this important debate this week, as part of Baby Loss Awareness Week. It is particularly important that the debate should be held this week.
I did not come into politics to be a baby loss campaigner. Like several of my all-party group colleagues, tragic circumstances led me to campaign to bring about change on this issue. Those circumstances occurred three years ago this Thursday, which makes this week all the more poignant. We, as politicians, have the best job in the world, and I would challenge anyone who says that Back Benchers cannot get things done. Politicians do not always have the best reputations—some of that is deserved, and some less so—but I would refer any sceptics to the work of the all-party group on baby loss.
This place is amazing, and if we use it correctly on a cross-party basis we can achieve great things. We can get things done. We can bring about positive change that will make a difference and affect people’s lives. The all-party group was established, and exists, to reduce miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, and to ensure that we have world-class bereavement care and support for those who suffer the tragedy of losing a child.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and those who will follow for their contributions in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is, like me, a person of faith. We are talking about losing small children or miscarrying; my mother miscarried a number of times, my sister miscarried and the young girl who works in my office miscarried on two occasions, and what sustained all of them was their faith. Does he agree that at such times, when people are in difficult circumstances, it is important that they have someone from a faith or religious background to call on? Does he also agree that it is important that hospitals have rooms where bereaved parents can spend time together, reflect and call on someone greater than us?

Will Quince: The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points, and he is absolutely right that bereavement suites play a very important role, as do hospital chaplains. I say that as a man of faith, but I know lots of people who have been through this tragic experience and who are not of faith. Nevertheless, the hospital chaplain came to talk to them—not about God, and not about religion—and sat there, listened, and allowed them to come to terms with the tragic event that had just happened. The chaplain gave them the time that they needed, and which medical professionals do not always have. It is a really important role, and chaplains are a credit to the NHS.
We now have some ambitious targets when it comes to tackling stillbirth and neonatal death. I applaud the Government for their commitment to bringing about a reduction in stillbirth and neonatal death of 20% by 2020— I recognise the Minister’s efforts to make us aware of the steps that will be taken to achieve that—and 50% by 2030. Those targets are very much to be welcomed. Even if we are to achieve those targets—let us be clear: it would be absolutely fantastic if we could achieve a 50% reduction in stillbirth and neonatal death by 2030—that statistic would still mean thousands of babies dying every year. Tens of thousands of parents—
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Baby Loss Awareness Week may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 9.00pm.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Main Question again proposed.

Will Quince: The fact that we have some really ambitious targets is to be applauded, and I welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s position on those targets. Even if we achieve a target of about 50%, however, that would mean that between 2,500 and 3,000 babies will still die every year. We must ensure that the parents, grandparents and wider family members have a support network. That is why the all-party group was established very much on the basis of bereavement care, and our focus very much remains on bereavement care.

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend mentioned support networks, and I want to draw attention to the Crowborough birthing unit in my constituency of Wealden. It does fantastic work with mums and dads, and siblings, to make sure everyone can go through the process either of having a healthy baby or, if they have such a tragedy, of losing a child.

Will Quince: My hon. Friend gives a great constituency example. Maternity units up and down this country have the most incredible provision and offer the most incredible compassion and care. In fact, we have some of the best provision in the world. Tragically, however, that is not replicated all across the country, and there is regional variation. I will come on to what we need to do to address that a little later.
To return to bereavement, the very first debate, which I led in this House back in November 2015, was about bereavement care. It specifically looked at bereavement suites in maternity units, and that was very much the focus. I am pleased to say that the theme of this Baby Loss Awareness Week is bereavement.
This week, we have seen something incredible, something truly groundbreaking—the result of over a year of work —which is the establishment of the national bereavement care pathway. The pathway has been developed by a number of charities and professional organisations, with the support of the Department of Health and the all-party group on baby loss. It has primarily been developed to improve the quality of bereavement care experienced by parents and families at all stages of pregnancy and, indeed, baby loss up to 12 months. The objective of the pathway is to ensure that all bereaved parents are offered equal, high-quality, individualised care that is safe and sensitive.
The national bereavement care pathway was launched yesterday in 11 pilot sites, and the plan is to roll it out nationwide over the next year. This has been an incredible exercise in collaborative working. I want to pay tribute to Sands, all the baby loss charities and organisations that have made an input, NHS trusts, the Department of Health and all the parents who have fed in their experiences. It is not easy for them to talk about their loss, and the evidence of all the parents who have talked about their tragic experience will improve care for very many others up and down the country. I also pay tribute to a former colleague, Ben Gummer, who, when he was the Minister with responsibility for care quality, pushed so hard for this and worked so hard to make it happen.
Yes, it is important that we push the Government to address the UK’s high stillbirth and neonatal death rate, but the support that we give bereaved parents is just as important, if not more so. We need to make sure that they have the support that enables them to have the time and the space in which to grieve. We know that going  through this most traumatic of experiences can often lead to mental health issues—such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, about which there is growing evidence—whether they appear weeks, months or sometimes even years later. The number of couples that separate after losing a child is still very high, and that comes with huge social costs. Putting in place the right level of high-quality, consistent bereavement care is not just the right thing to do for parents; it should be part of our push to improve mental health care nationwide.

Robert Jenrick: On the pathway for bereaved parents, may I raise a particular type of bereavement that is unusual but does, unfortunately, happen? On 4 August, my constituent Craig Renton went into hospital with his wife Heidi for her to have a caesarean. Sadly, she died during the caesarean, and although their baby was born, she also died 15 hours later. Within the space of 15 hours, the happy couple expecting the birth of their daughter were no more, and my constituent Craig, who came to see me, had lost both his wife and his first and only child. In such a situation, the bereavement care needs to be designed particularly carefully if it is to deal with two bereavements in one day.

Will Quince: My hon. Friend raises a most tragic case, and I know I speak for everybody in the House when we send our condolences to Craig in what must have been a hugely emotional and traumatic experience. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the point of the national bereavement care pathway is to ensure that care, although consistent, is individualised and patient-centred. That means that when there are unique sets of circumstances—I would say that was a unique set of circumstances—the care package and the bereavement support are unique to match them.
I could never, ever truly express my thanks to the nurses at the Rosemary suite, a specialist bereavement suite at Colchester General Hospital, for the care and support that my wife and I received just three years ago, but I want to ensure that every grieving parent receives the excellent, high-level support that we did. I truly believe that the new national bereavement care pathway is an important step to making that a reality. I am really proud to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and I know that the work that we are doing on a cross-party basis is really important and is changing lives up and down the country.
Finally, I want to send a message to bereaved parents up and down the country that together we will break the silence on baby loss.

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to make sure we all get equal time on this. Can I suggest that Members speak for up to eight minutes, so that everybody gets equal time? It is a very important day, it is a very emotional debate, and I want to make sure we get fairness right across the Chamber.

Philippa Whitford: I speak as someone who has not lost a child, but I remember what happened when I was working in Lebanon and was four months pregnant with my son. We had discussed the risks of going to Lebanon when I was  pregnant and we thought I would only be there a few months; even if I was here there would be nothing that could be done, so I was not adding to the risk. But when I suddenly saw blood, all of a sudden I realised how paltry that word “miscarriage” is. I understand that we are predominantly talking about babies who have been lost later, but that term “miscarriage” sounds like “misstep”—like a bump in the road—and by four or five months, particularly once you have had that little ultrasound picture, which you thought was going to be the first of a whole lifetime of photographs, you realise you have already bonded with the bulge that means you need elasticated waistbands and is giving you heartburn or keeping you up at night, or even, a bit later, starting to kick the living daylights out of you at three in the morning. So I think it is really important, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said, that we think of those who are slightly outwith this debate. That is something that we must try to bring over to medical staff as well.
I acknowledge the discussion about bereavement midwives, and we always need champions and leaders when, trying to raise awareness, but as someone who has worked in breast cancer for over 30 years, I can tell the House that having a grumpy old surgeon and then sending the lady to the breast cancer nurse, who would be nice to her, is not a solution. In fact, with all midwives, all doctors, it only takes one person to turn the knife and make that heartbreak worse.
I had a friend who had three miscarriages before she successfully had two rather wild and lively boys—something for which I am sure she gives thanks every day. On her second miscarriage, a routine scan at 16 weeks revealed that the heartbeat had stopped. They thought she would miscarry, but she did not. The period between then and when she underwent surgery meant she knew she was carrying her own dead baby. That was really difficult. At the scan that made the diagnosis, she was simply sent back out to the waiting room after a couple of minutes. She was sitting there surrounded by women with their bumps discussing their plans, while she waited for almost half an hour to be taken into a room and just given leaflets. There is no point in having one person who knows how someone should be supported: every single member of every single team, from antenatal, perinatal and right through to early paediatrics, needs to know the language, the body language, the timing and the support that someone might need.
The number one thing as a doctor is to try to reduce the number of deaths. Scotland actually had higher perinatal, stillbirth and neonatal figures. About five years ago, there was a big discussion in the profession in Scotland saying that it needed to be tackled. It was not enough simply to collect data—whether the Scottish perinatal mortality data, which go back to 1977, or, now, in MBRRACE-UK. The cases had to be looked at. Regardless of whether that is done through a fatal accident inquiry, it must be done by the clinicians. As surgeons, we carry out morbidity-mortality meetings every couple of weeks to discuss cases that have gone wrong in a very open and frank way. We learn from them. Often, we will suddenly see a pattern that makes us want to change. Since 2013 in Scotland, our perinatal figures have dropped by 34%—a third—our stillbirth rate has dropped by 26% and neonatal has dropped by over 50%. That is what can be done if every single case is discussed.
Believe me, Scottish Members here know that the geography of Scotland makes providing perinatal care really difficult and challenging. It is easy to identify the difficult case with a past history of diabetes or a huge wain and a small pelvis, but any delivery can go wrong. One challenge we face, which is not faced in so many areas in England, is how to get people off our islands and how to cover hundreds of miles, yet we have managed to bring the figures down.
It is absolutely right that, even if we drop the mortality rate further, there will be children who are lost. We must not stop trying to do that and we must support people, in particular those whose babies are born and require extra neonatal care in a special baby unit. We know they have a higher incidence of post-natal depression. We know that, naturally, mothers who lose a child will have an increased incidence of post-natal depression. If we can get all our teams to try to get it right all the way through and support them, then maybe we can tackle both problems.

Victoria Prentis: Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have to say it is not a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. It is absolute torture for many of the speakers who have chosen to share their experiences with the House. It is, however, a pleasure to follow the extremely knowledgeable speech, as ever, of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It is so good to hear the good news from Scotland about the real developments that have come from investigation into what happens when things go wrong.
I am most grateful to business managers—even if I am quite close to some of them—for allocating time during Baby Loss Awareness Week, and to all those who organised the extension of today’s sitting. It is a testament to the way the House has changed. I am grateful that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have chosen to be in the Chair after your traumatic experiences last year listening to us. We are most grateful to all those who have enabled this debate.
It is fair to say that maternal safety keeps me awake at night. Issues with the maternity unit at Horton General Hospital in my constituency sadly continue. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) in his place. I do not know what keeps him awake at night. Indeed, I do not know whether he is kept awake at night. If he is, I suspect his young son probably has something to do with it, but I also know that he worries as much as I do about the future of the unit. The uncertainty goes on. My hon. Friend, other campaigners and I are not giving in. I remain convinced that the current situation is unsafe. Significant numbers of transfers are taking place during labour. Babies have been born at the side of the road and in ambulances. Mothers and their babies are not getting the sort of care that is safe, kind and close to home, which is what everybody in the Chamber wills them to get.
Out of this morass sadly comes some dreadful casework. I have noticed that when something goes wrong, the shutters come down in the health service. Hospitals are on the defensive from the beginning and legal teams are called in. In one of the saddest cases I have had to deal with over the past year, Oxford University Hospitals  NHS Foundation Trust responded by saying that it would not meet me or the family in question without legal representation. My attempts to ensure that there was a full and external review of the case by MBRRACE-UK, for example, were stalled for months. This is simply not acceptable. Families, along with most of us, are motivated by a burning desire to ensure that what happened to us will not happen again. They are not interested in compensation except where that is necessary for looking after a desperately sick child. They are motivated by change in practice.
Sir Charles Pollard, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police, has been working tirelessly on producing restorative solutions in the justice sector—that is my background—and increasingly in the health sector, where the needs of all parties, including families, doctors and staff, are crucial. Constructive conversations can be had in carefully controlled environments. I think, particularly after having a lengthy conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), that it is important to find a new language. We do not want to apportion blame to anyone in any way, unlike in the justice sector. Finding a new language would be good for families and for staff, who are often traumatised by a loss on their watch.

Tim Loughton: There have been some exceptional speeches on this sensitive issue. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that my private Member’s Bill—the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill—includes a clause to give coroners the power to investigate late-term stillbirths. Extraordinarily, that is currently not available to them. Many parents who have gone through difficult stillbirths where the circumstances are unclear would like an independent assessment of what went wrong so that everybody can learn from the situation. I am sure my hon. Friend will support that.

Victoria Prentis: I will most certainly support that.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) made an excellent speech in which she mentioned inquests and fatal accident inquiries. I do not know why so many of us involved in this debate are lawyers; it is very strange. These are, of course, very sensitive legal issues. We are talking about when a person becomes a person—things that we have not spoken about in places such as Parliament or the courts, and perhaps should have done, over the years. We have allowed a body of law to grow up that does not fit current requirements. Even though restorative solutions are great, inquests may also be appropriate and may also act restoratively. They do not have to be legalistic. They can be inquisitive, which is why inquests came into being. Inquests and, in Scotland, fatal accidents inquiries, have an important part to play in preventing stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
Today is World Mental Health Day, so it is particularly appropriate that we are talking about the bereavement care pathway in Baby Loss Awareness Week. As we have heard from other hon. Members, the pathway is very good in places but variable in others. We are making progress but we need to do more to ensure consistency, and I know the Minister is on top of this. The Care Quality Commission does not currently ask sufficiently in-depth questions about the quality of bereavement  care on offer, but I am encouraged by the constructive conversations I have had with it on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss recently and am hopeful that we will have real progress to report this time next year.
I would like to end on a high. Petals opened its new bereavement counselling service in Banbury yesterday, in the Horton General Hospital, and I was very pleased to be there. It offers bereaved families six sessions per couple. That might not be enough, and it certainly might not be appropriate for mothers and fathers to be seen together, but the evidence shows that what it does is of very real value and that its outcomes are valuable and beneficial to the couples who use its service. Lots of charities do similar work, as is clear from our well-attended APPG meetings.
We might not enjoy these debates, but they have begun to change both perceptions and the law, and I am grateful to the Minister and the previous Member for Ipswich for all their work. I would like to finish by congratulating us all.

Emma Little Pengelly: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, which allows us to play our part in Baby Loss Awareness Week.
In terms of how we talk about it day to day, pregnancy and childbirth are for many people times of joy and celebration: a new addition to the family, a celebration of new life, the hopes and dreams—and laughter and tears—that a new baby can bring to a family. It is all the more difficult, therefore, when a family suffers the loss of a baby. These issues— miscarriage, stillbirth, death in infancy—are less commonly spoken about for a range of reasons. I note that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) referenced miscarriage. I know from speaking to family and friends that the loss is felt acutely, but too often, perhaps, society trivialises it. To the mother and family, it is the loss of a baby—an unborn baby—and the hopes and dreams that go with it. When that is taken away, privately it can be very difficult. Some do not tell their family and friends straightway, so the grief takes place in a very private and unspoken way. Others break the news, and it is heart-breaking to have to so shortly after sharing the good news of the pregnancy. I know that that can be particularly difficult for families and women.
The pain and loss that follow from the loss of a child can be acute. I know that families admire the many improvements made and I recognise that much work has been done, but I also know that more must be done to enhance services, including bereavement services, and the support for perinatal and post-natal mental health. I know from speaking to many women that the support services are simply not there at this very difficult time. It is not right, for example, that many women continue to be placed in and around maternity wards, surrounded by new mothers, parents and joy, at a time when they are grieving. Having to listen to the conversations, hearing the cries of new-born babies, while suffering their own personal loss, makes it all the more difficult for them and their families. It is not right that a woman who has suffered miscarriage after miscarriage, often when a child is much longed for, is required to sit in an  out-patients maternity ward with heavily pregnant and joyful mothers-to-be. Very often women are left there for half an hour or an hour watching those families and feeling the pain of their loss—sometimes loss after loss—very acutely. It is not right either that families are left without adequate bereavement care.
I want to raise a number of short points. First, our perinatal and support services must improve, not just following baby loss or miscarriage, but in relation to women’s mental health. The way in which we understand the human mind, mental health and trauma has changed and advanced year on year, but I think that, for too many of the people who go through this experience, those services are not advancing at the same pace and they need to catch up.
Secondly, we need to look at statutory and support services for bereaved parents as a matter of urgency. Like many people, before I started to speak to parents, I had assumed that these issues would be dealt with compassionately by employers, schools and statutory agencies, but it became clear that that was not always the case. There is a good basis for the introduction of enhanced statutory protections for bereaved families, to ensure that they are given the time that they need to try to heal and move forward with their lives.
Thirdly, I think it would be remiss of us not to refer to the health of mothers, infant mortality and miscarriage rates all over the world. There is no doubt that improvements can be made, and that they can be made throughout the United Kingdom as well. I welcome the commitment that has been made in that regard, but in too many countries, there are still appalling rates of infant mortality and appalling statistics about the health of mothers and what happens during childbirth. I know that most of those who campaign on the issue here will have the same interest in trying to improve services for women throughout the world. Those in the poorest areas often suffer incredibly during childbirth, and there are still very high levels of infant and mother mortality in such places.
Lastly, I want to take a moment to recognise all the parents and families who have suffered loss in this way. I think that it will be an incredible tribute to those families, and to the loss that they have suffered, if we go on striving to create world-leading services in both bereavement and childcare.

Michelle Donelan: I feel extremely humbled to be able to speak in the debate. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), as well as all members of the all-party group. They have shone a much-needed light on the issue of baby loss, its effect on parents, and the need for action. They have not only pushed for change, but helped to achieve it. On behalf of everyone who has ever suffered, I take this opportunity to say thank you.
We must also pay tribute to the medical professionals who work day in, day out to prevent baby loss and deal with it, and to organisations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as charities such as Sands. They play an important role in developing programmes and reviewing the care provided for expectant and bereaved parents.
Baby loss is not a regional or even a national problem, but an international one. It affects people in all our constituencies, and hurts and devastates families in Wiltshire and throughout the country. It has touched my own family. My grandma experienced the loss of her first-born in 1948 when the child was breached. Tragically, the ambulance reached her too late. The months after that were probably the hardest that she experienced in her life, and I heard about them when I was growing up. Like other women in the same situation, she struggled with the ordeal of having carried the baby and prepared for its birth, only to lose that child as soon as it arrived. Devastated and receiving no help, my grandmother suffered a period of depression.
That is the story of the strongest, most no-nonsense woman I have ever met in my life. She was a woman full of grit and strength, yet she had no help in her time of need, and even the strongest among us do need help. My grandma is long passed and now in heaven, but I think that she would want me to share her story, and to ask the question: why, after so many, many years, are the rates of baby loss still so high? The most recent review of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the UK reports that of 782,720 births in 2015, 3,032 were stillbirths and 1,360 were neonatal deaths. Yes, there has been a reduction since 2013, but the number remains higher than those in comparable European countries.
I am proud that the Government have taken action to address maternity care and set an ambitious target, which I think is bold and moral, to halve stillbirth rates by 2030. Now we must all work together to ensure that we meet that target by keeping the subject on the agenda. I hope that debates such as today’s will help to serve that purpose so that 69 years from now, when another MP is standing here, they are not saying the same thing.
I think that my grandmother would also ask why, 69 years on, we have failed to improve our bereavement care to a satisfactory and appropriate level. Bereavement care, as has been pointed out, is the focus of this year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week. Bereavement care is vital, both for psychological and emotional support, and for advice and signposting. Since 2010 we have invested £35 million in the NHS to improve birthing environments, including better bereavement rooms in 40 hospitals. We need that for every hospital and facility. The current guidelines vary far too much between setting and service. In addition, most of the frameworks are guidelines, and they are not mandatory, or indeed monitored, in all areas. That is why the Government’s work to create a national bereavement care pathway is so important. That will reduce the variation in the quality of bereavement care provided by the NHS so that residents in Wiltshire get the same care as those in, say, London or Manchester. That is essential.
One can only imagine how harrowing and devastating the loss of a baby must be. I think that the courage that Members have displayed by sharing their experiences in this House is remarkable. Bereavement care must be of a high quality, consistent, individualised and available across the UK. It is time that we achieved that so that, as I have said already, we do not look back in 69 years’ time and again ask why we are not doing more for those in need.
It is estimated that today about 15 babies in the UK will die before, during or shortly after birth. Today let us not only remember those who have suffered and the babies they have lost, but pledge to work together, across parties, to support the Government’s work and ensure that nobody faces a postcode lottery when it comes to baby loss. We need to determine what should be the level of bereavement support and ensure that it is consistent across the country so that parents receive what they deserve if they tragically lose a child.

Lilian Greenwood: I pay tribute to the hon. Members and their constituents who have shared their deeply personal stories. It must be very difficult to talk about the loss of a child. We are indebted to all those who have had the courage to talk about their experiences, both this evening and previously. I remember watching the debate last October and being struck by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who is in the Chamber tonight. She said then that it was the most difficult speech she had ever had to write or deliver, but it mattered enormously that she did so. Her speech, as well as those of other Members, many of whom are here tonight, demonstrated that Parliament was willing to talk about this most painful issue.
It was a few weeks after that debate that I met my constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins, whose daughter Harriet was born dead at Nottingham City Hospital on 17 April 2016. Jack and Sarah were convinced that Harriet’s death was the result of a mismanaged labour, but their concerns were not listened to by hospital staff; they were told that a post-mortem had found that Harriet’s death was caused by an infection and
“to try to move on”.
Jack and Sarah are both health professionals, so they knew that there was no evidence of an infection. They were sure that their healthy, full-term baby had died due to mistakes in Sarah’s care, and they were not prepared to be dismissed. The debate in this House helped to give them the confidence to get in touch and seek my advice and support, but it is thanks to their courage and determination that Harriet’s death is finally the subject of a proper external investigation. But the loss of their much-wanted daughter, and the circumstances surrounding it, have had an absolutely devastating effect on every aspect of their lives. Last week, they spoke to the media about Harriet’s death and the failures of care during Sarah’s labour, and many Members may have seen, heard or read their story. I will not attempt to do justice to it now, but others will be able to look it up online if they want. Jack and Sarah are calling for a change in the law to enable coroners to investigate stillbirths and hold inquests into the deaths of babies after 37 weeks’ gestation. That is the particular issue that I want to discuss today.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a duty to investigate certain deaths, but current legislation means that a stillborn child is not classed as a deceased person, so the coroner cannot investigate even when a healthy full-term baby has died during labour and the parents wish the coroner to do so. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the standardised perinatal mortality review tool is being rolled out across the country, but will he also support calls to broaden  coroners’ jurisdiction so that they are able, at the request of parents, to investigate a stillbirth? Hospitals’ internal review processes should involve parents and should answer their questions about why their baby has died, but when those questions are not answered, the coroner can play a vital role not just in providing answers—important though that is—but in identifying preventable deaths, and ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated. Such a change to coronial law would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland, where a landmark legal ruling in 2013 held that a coroner
“can carry out an inquest into the death of a stillborn child that had been capable of being born alive.”
It is clear from several contributions this evening that there is cross-party support for such a change. I particularly welcomed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). She is not in the Chamber now, but she assured me that the change has her support, for which I am thankful. I hope that the Minister will deal specifically and positively with this suggestion when he responds to the debate.
There is nothing that I can do to take away the pain of Harriet’s death for Jack and Sarah, as much as I wish I could, but I think that they would gain some comfort if their experience helped to prevent other parents from suffering in the same way.

Antoinette Sandbach: It a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I know exactly how Jack and Sarah feel, because it was the burning desire to see change that motivated me and many others in the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss to work not only to reduce the number of neonatal deaths and stillbirths, but to consider how we can improve things for parents.
When we set up the APPG, saying that we wanted to achieve huge cuts in the number of families affected by all these issues and to put in place a bereavement care pathway seemed to be setting rather a large challenge. I pay enormous tribute not only to Members of this House—it has been a cross-party effort—but to parents and health professionals, who have risen to the challenge set by the APPG and the Department of Health. In a way, I can provide some comfort to a number of Members who have spoken today about miscarriage, for example, because the national bereavement care pathway, which was launched yesterday, in effect addresses loss from conception to up to one year post-birth. That is quite groundbreaking in a number of ways. Pilot schemes in 11 hospital trusts are developing specific pathways to address early miscarriage, late miscarriage and stillbirth, and for those in the very unfortunate situation of having to terminate because of foetal abnormality. I have been encouraged by the willingness of parents to come forward and talk about their experiences as part of the development of these pathways and to share their loss with medical professionals, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives. There has absolutely been cross-working and buy-in for this change.
I am encouraged that the change is being supported by the Department of Health. Pilots are taking place so that lessons can be learned, with the outcome of those lessons applied before things are rolled out more widely  and nationally. As somebody who sat in a room with white walls and a sofa that was not anything like a bereavement suite, I know at first hand, as do so many parents who have not been in such facilities, that when one visits a hospital such as Medway Maritime Hospital, which has the most extraordinary facilities, one can see that change is coming. The improvement and change in the past year has, to my mind, been something that I and many professionals did not imagine would happen as quickly as it has and in the way that it has.
I would absolutely support the hon. Member for Nottingham South if she proposed a ten-minute rule Bill to try to effect the change in coronial law that she spoke about. I myself will introduce a ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow on the regulation of foetal dopplers. I will expand on that point tomorrow, but the false reassurance they provide to parents can increase the risk of stillbirth. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) put forward a Bill in the last Parliament that has now been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and it is due to have its Second Reading on 20 October. There are therefore methods to effect change in this Parliament, and I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham South would find great support in the House for her constituents if she tried to effect the change that they propose. I know that I will be trying to get the Minister’s support tomorrow on the subject of foetal dopplers.
This is Parliament at its best. We are listening to constituents. We understand where there has been a failure in the system, and there is no doubt that the statistics show we need to make changes in this area. I am delighted that the Government have accepted that quickly and have therefore set ambitious targets. The chief executive of my local hospital, the Leighton Hospital, which has an award-winning maternity unit, was able to say to me that they had had 14 fewer deaths this year. That means 14 fewer families in my local areas going through the loss that so many in this House and outside it have seen. At the same time, I should say that the Countess of Chester Hospital is under investigation in relation to 15 baby deaths. There are concerns about care in relation to eight of them. So the perinatal mortality tool is crucial, as is the investigation of these incidents, in order that those lessons are learned, that good practice is shared and that professionals are honest with parents where something has gone wrong; they need to admit that and learn from it so that it does not affect other families. Let us get that open culture; the Health Secretary has talked openly about the need for no-fault investigation, and the need to learn from that culture is incredibly important. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who speaks for the Opposition on this matter, will know of the particular importance of that, because the Countess of Chester serves his area too and this directly affects all our constituents.
I say to the Minister that the huge progress that has been made is encouraging. The charities and colleges yesterday spoke about the great enthusiasm and drive that has come from working collaboratively together. If we can take that and use it, the progress we are starting to make can carry on. We can roll it out into the difficult areas. We know that they exist, so let me mention just two. First, we know that there are big issues in respect of minority ethnic groups that go beyond the  hospital setting, often relating to factors in the environment. Those issues fall outside the Department of Health’s remit, but wider working will need to be done to examine how those factors can be addressed and whether or not public health issues arise in their regard.
The second area involves general practitioners. I sent out a freedom of information request to every clinical commissioning group in England, and less than 50% of them provide any form of bereavement counselling, whatever the death. So even not in relation to child loss, a lot of CCGs simply are not commissioning support in the community. Those CCGs have relied on provision from the acute sector, and the next piece of work from the all-party group will need to be on how we take the lessons learned from the acute sector into the primary care sector, because that will end up benefiting not just those who have lost a child, but those who have suffered a loss.

Victoria Prentis: The other sector that provides so much of the bereavement care, such as the service I helped open yesterday, is of course the charitable sector. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on whether CCGs should be encouraged to join that sector in funding bereavement counselling, such as that provided by Petals, in the future?

Antoinette Sandbach: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and she can probably guess that the reason for my freedom of information request was to put pressure on not only my local services, but services more widely. There is expertise out there that we can build on, but bereavement touches everybody and this Government’s focus on mental health gives us a real opportunity to approach death in a way that minimises its mental health impacts, which can be severe. We can roll out elsewhere the way in which the Department of Health is leading on baby loss and working together with the third sector. This year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week therefore perhaps has a message of hope that has not been present in the past two such debates we have had.

Diana R. Johnson: I am very grateful to be called to speak in this debate. I took part in the debate last year and was very moved by the contributions. I am pleased that we have such excellent speakers again today. I wish to pay tribute to the all-party group for the wonderful work that it has done, and to say to the Government that their record of making improvements and investing in this area is to be applauded.
I am having to stand here again because I wish to speak about my constituents, Mike and Tina Trowhill. Members may remember that I spoke about them last year. Many years ago, they lost their little boy, William, who was then cremated. They were told that there were no ashes, but 20 years later they found that there had been ashes and that they had been scattered without the family’s knowledge. Mike and Tina started to ask questions, and it became clear that they were not the only family that this had happened to. It now appears that there are about 70 families in the Hull area who share their experience. The ashes of those babies may have been left on the shelves of the funeral director’s offices. There was  one instance of a baby being cremated, with no indication of an undertaker being used. Nobody seems to know quite how that happened.
When this all came to light, I went to see the council, because I knew that there had been similar instances in Shrewsbury and Scotland and that there had been inquiries about what had happened in those areas. It was on 27 March 2015 that I went to the council with Mike and Tina and we asked whether we could have an inquiry into what had happened to these 70-odd families. It took three and a half months for the council to say that no, it was not willing to do that. I felt that there was an injustice here and that these families needed to know what had happened to their babies’ ashes.
In February 2016, I went to see the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, at that time, was Secretary of State for Justice. He wrote a letter to Hull City Council, which said:
“My fellow Secretaries of State at the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have agreed with me that there is a need for an historic investigation into the practices relating to infant cremations in the Hull area, and we have today jointly written to the Chief Executive of Hull City Council asking him to commission this. We have suggested that the Hull investigation should have terms of reference similar to those of the Emstrey inquiry.”
I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. He met my constituents and was incredibly compassionate and understanding. It is really important to see a politician showing such kindness. However, unfortunately, Hull City Council said that it did not need to hold that inquiry and there was a change in Justice Secretary. Without any reference to me, Tina or any of the other families, the Ministry of Justice decided not to pursue the issue with Hull City Council. It accepted that Hull had done everything it needed to do and that everything was fine. I was not told that. I only found it out because the council told me that it was no longer considering holding an inquiry. I was livid and, as Members can imagine, my constituent was completely dismayed. She has now formed a group with the other families called Action for Ashes in Hull.
The families were absolutely dismayed, as their hope of getting the answer to what had happened was snatched away from them. However, the new Justice Secretary did write to Hull City Council, suggesting that it might like to meet the Action for Ashes group. The council refused to do that, saying that it was not willing to meet the group, but that it would meet me, Tina and one other parent. We had that meeting on 24 March 2017. I specifically asked for the full investigation that it said it had carried out to be published so that we could see what it had actually done. That took four months. On 25 July, my constituent Tina was given 27 minutes’ notice that the report was about to be published and given to the press. It was not sent to any of the other parents who were in the group.
A 22-page internal report was produced by Hull City Council, but so many questions still needed answering—questions, as I said at the outset, about why babies’ ashes were left on the shelves of funeral directors and why families were told there were no ashes in the first instance. None of that was properly addressed, and there was no investigation into the role the NHS had played or into the independent funeral directors who had been involved. The report also looked at just 2% of  the cremations that had been carried out in the area, whereas, in Shropshire, the Emstrey inquiry looked at 100%—it combed through all the records. In Hull, the report looked only at the families who had come forward and self-identified.
A year on from the last time I raised this issue in Parliament, Hull City Council still believes it has done everything it needs to do, despite families saying they still have not got the answers they need. I still do not understand why, in Shrewsbury and Scotland, an inquiry was appropriate, but one is not appropriate for the people I represent. There have never been clear answers and explanations about what happened. One Conservative Member made the point that there seems to be a fear that this will turn into a legal dispute and that there will be an opportunity for compensation. That is not what these families want; they just want to know what happened, why they were told things that were not true, and who knew what when. It is that basic information that they are still seeking.
I hope very much that come next year—I hope there will be a debate again, because this is an important issue, which we need to discuss each year—I do not have to come here and say, “I am still fighting to get a local authority to display the kindness and compassion this group of people truly deserves.” I am staggered that I am still having to fight this case, because it is absolutely obvious that an internal investigation is not sufficient. What we need is to have some fresh air in this case and to have someone independent come in, look at all the records and ask the families about what happened. That seems to me the best way forward, the kindest way forward and the way we will actually get justice and truth for these families finally.

Paul Masterton: Let me start by saying how grateful I am to everybody who secured the extension of today’s business so that we have the opportunity to pay tribute to the families who have suffered the unimaginable loss of a child and to the professionals who provide irreplaceable care and support throughout a journey that no parent ever wants to take, and, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, to break the silence for bereaved parents, as the strapline for this year’s campaign says.
I also pay tribute to the APPG and to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince), and to other Members from across the House, including the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who have spoken with such courage, dignity, passion and determination, enabling us to deal with this issue in a very open and honest way and to really move things forward. The hon. Lady was right to say that if we do not talk about things, nothing ever happens, and I commend everybody for telling their stories.
I want to tell two stories today, one of which I told in my debate in Westminster Hall before the recess, and which focused on bereavement support for employees. It is about a young guy in the west of Scotland, who was recently married and looking forward to becoming a dad for the first time, but whose son died at three days old. He received a phone call from his employer the day after his child’s death to say that because his son was dead and there was no baby, there was an expectation  that he did not need the remainder of his parental leave and was therefore expected to come back to work the next day. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) is so right that there is an assumption that people are kind and decent and deal with things compassionately, but the truth in too many cases is that that is not the case.
The second story I want to talk about is about a family in my constituency, and it means a lot to me because it is the story of my office manager, whose daughter Rebecca died of TB meningitis. She had spent the last three months of her life in the Institute of Neurosciences in Glasgow’s children’s hospital. After several failed operations on her brain, her parents were told that there was no hope and that their daughter would die—their daughter, who had previously been fit and well and full of life, would die of a disease not usually associated with a first world, developed country. For the last three weeks of her life, she was transferred to Robin House, which is a most incredible children’s hospice run by Children’s Hospices Across Scotland in Balloch, near Loch Lomond.
The staff of Robin House gave Rebecca, her parents and the rest of her family a week devoted to giving her what I believe is called a “good death”. I am not sure there is ever such a thing, but in these circumstances perhaps that is the right term. It was a week where nothing else mattered, where the tasks that made an impossible situation in the hospital worse, like having to cook, do the laundry, travel, find a car parking space and look after other children, were all entirely dealt with. Rebecca died on 2 December 2009 in the arms of her parents, in a double bed that had been installed in her room from another part of the hospice, because no task was impossible for the staff of Robin House. Indeed, their support for Rebecca’s family continues several years on.
It is important to recognise that for the charities across the UK no task is impossible for the babies, children and parents they look after—from Bliss and its vision to give every baby born prematurely and sick in the UK the best chance of survival and quality of life, to Sands, which offers support to anyone affected by the death of a baby, the Miscarriage Association and its work offering support to anyone affected by miscarriage, and Together for Short Lives, whose mission is to secure the best quality of life and the best end of life for children who have short lives. In parents’ hours of need, absolutely nothing is insurmountable for both the paid staff and the volunteers in these organisations.
As we have heard, however, experiences outside the specialist palliative care environment can vary wildly. Hospital facilities do not always lend themselves well to the purpose of grieving. Not all health boards have dedicated bereavement rooms. They do not all have dedicated staff available. They do not all have rooms where parents can leave the noise and “life” of the hospital environment, which can make things so much harder and painful because it is so impersonal and sterile. Not all hospitals provide night-time accommodation for parents. Rebecca’s mum regularly slept in hospital coffee rooms overnight simply because there were not the facilities on the ward for her.
After death, when families are left devastated—some of them may have lost or given up their job and devoted themselves to being the sole carers for a sick child for  many months or possibly years—the support we as a society give them to grieve can make the difference between whether they are able to rebuild their lives or not. Someone said to me that when your child dies you are shattered and, like a smashed vase, you can put the pieces back together but you are never the same as you once were; you are never truly whole again. You may find a way to function in society, but you are not coping; you are never coping. The grief can come on almost randomly and indiscriminately and it can be overwhelming. We must acknowledge the fact that the psychological consequences of grieving for a child are lifelong. It is not something that will ever leave you.
I am talking today not with a list of statistics or data because this is not a debate for pie charts or graphs. It is more about trying to reinforce the message of Baby Loss Awareness Week, to break the silence for bereaved parents who need support, to break the silence to promote the outstanding work of charities such as CHAS, CLIC Sargent, the Rainbow Trust, Bliss and the many charities across the UK that have come together for Baby Loss Awareness Week, and, most importantly, to break the silence for children like Rebecca so they are never forgotten.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: Following on from the very moving and courageous speeches by hon. Members about Baby Loss Awareness Week, I rise as someone whose own family members have suffered from the trauma of baby loss. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths affect so many in our community, including in my Slough constituency. The son of my very good friend Councillor Madhuri Bedi was born prematurely. He had strep B, which gave him brain damage. The family had to make the harrowing decision to switch off his life support machine only one day into his precious life. As they remarked, there is very little awareness and not enough support. That is something that we all need to work towards.
I commend the excellent work done by so many individuals, campaigners and hon. Members, on a cross-party basis. I also pay tribute to members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss.

Melanie Onn: On that point, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recommendations in the updated clinical guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which include the recommendation that all pregnant women should at the very least be provided with an information leaflet on group B strep, as a tool to raise awareness and prevent what he has just described?

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I fully concur with my hon. Friend and thank her for her intervention. In that regard, I would very much like to pay tribute to hon. Members in the all-party group. I look forward to joining them tomorrow to provide whatever little support I can.
It is wonderful to see the advances made and also the pledges made by the Minister, whether on maternity safety champions, funding for safety and training at hospitals or the national bereavement care pathway. I for one most sincerely hope that he and the Government  will continue in this endeavour to ensure that we make further advances and minimise the trauma suffered by so many.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked very touchingly about his own family experiences when they were affected by this terrible issue. It is also a privilege and an honour to speak in this debate in Baby Loss Awareness Week. Obviously it is humbling to hear all the different stories from fellow Members and parents on these Benches—they are such harrowing stories—and the bravery with which they are able to communicate them and raise this issue.
This is the most harrowing thing that can happen to any parent. I speak as a parent of four children, one of whom is about to reach his 21st birthday, but this is a fear that will never leave any of us, whatever age our children are. Although we got to four children, we had a number of mishaps and miscarriages along the way, and the hope for those affected is that as more children come along the way, that pain eases a little bit.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce my own private Member’s Bill to deal with some of these issues—actually, I have merely been passed the baton by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has done so much work on this. My private Member’s Bill would allow parental bereavement leave. We heard an incredible story from my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who talked about an employer who would not let somebody affected by this terrible tragedy have time off work. That is absolutely outrageous, but the reality is that in those circumstances—the death of a child—there is no statutory requirement for an employer to let staff have time off. I cannot imagine the distress that that must cause people affected by these terrible tragedies—tragedy upon tragedy—or how terrible the effect must be on the workforce of that employer, with everybody having to hear about it.
Most employers, of course, do not take that approach. I speak as an employer, both here—we are employers in this place—and in my life before Parliament. As an employer, we would not need the Government or anybody else to tell us to give people affected by this tragedy leave. Of course we would do that, and we would pay them whatever pay they were due. Sadly we cannot be that generous in our private Member’s Bill, but I encourage all Members please to attend the Second Reading debate on my Bill next Friday, to contribute and to make sure that we look at all the issues and circumstances. It is wonderful to hear that people are willing to share their circumstances, because it will help us to make sure that the legislation is in the right place.
The Bill would require all employers to provide at least two weeks’ leave for all staff affected by this kind of tragedy. I am delighted that the Government are supporting the Bill, which gives us a very good chance, given the extended time we have to get it through—unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester was unable to get it through in the last Session because of time constraints. It fits very neatly with the Government’s pledge to enhance rights and protections in the workplace, so it is exactly where we need to be. Making sure that every employer provides such protections for people in their time of loss is the least we can do.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) for their tremendous work in this area. Over the summer months, we have been working with employers, charities and unions to make sure that we get the legislation to the right place, as I am keen to do. The legislation will help bereaved parents not just of babies but of children all the way up to their 18th birthday.
I am sure that we all have touching stories from our own experience, or from constituents who have come to us. Some members of the all-party group will be familiar with Annika and James Dowson, and with Luke and Ruthie Heron. The Dowsons lost their little child, Gypsy, who was stillborn. The Herons lost Eli after 23 weeks and six days, but he managed to survive for another two and a half days. Had he not done so, their loss would have been classed as a miscarriage rather than a stillbirth. They are championing the need to look at the legislation in that regard, and Annika and James put all their efforts into raising money for a bereavement suite in Scarborough. There are some tremendous and touching stories of the hope that has come out of these tragedies. If the Bill eases the unimaginable pain of just one family, our collective efforts will be worthwhile.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I pay tribute to the bravery of the many people who have described very personal and moving experiences in the Chamber this evening. I have experienced this issue from a different angle, in a professional capacity. As a consultant paediatrician, I have been privileged to see many hundreds of babies come into the world. I can honestly say that the joy and the miracle of that event, in whatever circumstances, is not diminished by having seen it on numerous occasions.
As a junior doctor, one is fortunate to see many happy occasions when babies are born in good health and at full-term. As a consultant, one is called only when either the mum or the baby is in significant trouble. That might be when the baby is very premature, when the baby or mum is very sick—for example, following a road traffic accident or with sepsis, which we have heard about here before—or when the baby is, sadly, born without a heart rate.
I can remember occasions from my professional experience when I have had to give parents the news that nobody—I speak as a parent of three—ever wants to hear, and no doctor ever wants to give: that a baby or child is, sadly, going to die. I remember holding one particular infant in my arms, because his parents were not able to do so, as he passed away. There is no doubt that we need to do everything we can—NHS professionals work very hard every day—to make sure that that does not happen, but unfortunately it does. I welcome the Government’s target to reduce the incidence of stillbirth by 50% by 2030.
I want to talk about some of the changes that have been made during my career. I graduated as a doctor in 2001, and I worked as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS, particularly in neonatal care. A number of changes in neonatal care have led to improvements over this time. There has been an increasing centralisation of neonatal care, so that the smallest and sickest infants  are cared for in areas of significant expertise. This has helped to reduce mortality, particularly for the smallest and sickest babies. It has also led to a need for transportation. A baby who is born in a small district general hospital may need to be transferred many miles—sometimes hundreds of miles—to a hospital that has the expertise to care for their particular problem. When I was a junior doctor, that meant the doctor who was on shift, such as me, getting into the back of a 999-called ambulance and taking the baby in an incubator to wherever they needed to go.
Over the past few years, that has changed considerably. We now have clinical networks and areas of the country are divided up into patches in which there is a dedicated clinical team, led by a consultant neonatologist, with nurses and doctors who have specialised in this area. In many cases, there is a dedicated ambulance, as well as helicopter transport, to come and retrieve babies from whichever hospital they are born in and to take them to such a centre of expertise. That has been a big improvement in the care we offer children during the time that I have been a doctor.
As was mentioned earlier, another thing we have done is to focus much more on the lessons that we can learn. As a doctor, the first infant I saw who died was a young boy whose death was, sadly, entirely preventable. There was an investigation and lessons have been learned, but that does not take away from the horror of the occasion. It was an awful experience for the family, and it was traumatic for everybody involved. As an introduction to being a junior doctor—although I took no responsibility for it all medically—it was very traumatic, as it was for everybody.
We now have regular meetings to look at the cases of children or infants who have died, suffered significant injury or become more unwell than we anticipated, and where any type of adverse event has occurred. Such cases are looked at in detail by a multidisciplinary team, which goes stepwise through the process from the child being conceived or being referred to hospital and asks what has happened, why it has happened, what could have been done better and what would have changed the outcome. Although we would like to prevent every case, the reality is that, while we will get closer to doing so, we will never prevent every death, in my view. We should, however, prevent every one that can be prevented, and I very much welcome the Minister’s statement about improving the way in which cases are reviewed and about making that a statutory requirement.
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in relation to child bereavement leave. He is right to say that most employers, like him, are very flexible in dealing with people whose infant may be very unwell in hospital for several months at a time, but some are not, and that places an enormous pressure on such people. I also welcome the national bereavement care pathway. All the hospitals in which I have worked have had bereavement rooms and I think they provided good care to bereaved parents and families, although I know that that is not accepted as a universal statement.
Will the Minister look in detail at the evidence on group B streptococcal infections, and at any evidence relating to whether women should be screened for that in pregnancy?
The centralisation of tertiary neonatal services has been a good thing in making the survival outcomes for babies better. We are now focusing not just on survival but on improving the quality of life, particularly for pre-term infants, such as by improving ventilator settings so that their vision is improved and their lung function is better as they grow up. However, centralisation also has an impact on families. For example, for a baby born in my constituency, the nearest tertiary neonatal centre is Nottingham, and if it does not have a bed, they might be sent further afield to Sheffield, Leicester or Norwich. For people looking after older children at home—having to take them to school, for instance—trying to manage having a baby several hours’ journey away will have a huge impact on the family. It also has significant cost implications, and I not infrequently see parents, particularly in working families on low incomes, who are struggling with the financial implications of travelling to visit their desperately sick baby who is several hours away.
Overall, I think there have been many welcome announcements in this field today.

Robert Courts: May I say how honoured and humbled I am to follow so many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made moving speeches about their own experiences, and those with very deep professional knowledge, chief among whom are the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)? May I also thank all the members of the all-party group—we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach)—whose passion for and commitment to this most important of all causes really shines through, as I am sure everybody on both sides of the House agrees? I thank all those who have spoken today through their own pain, as well as all those constituents who have written to all of us to enable us to raise in the Chamber a cause that matters so much to them. If they did not write and share those very difficult stories, we would not be able to do half as much to help.
In my brief comments today, I shall give voice to concerns that my constituents have raised, and I want to support all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who are working so hard to make change, reducing the number of deaths in these most tragic circumstances and providing help to parents when, regrettably, deaths do occur. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for mentioning my little boy Henry. I am experiencing the joy of being a new father. I can only imagine the trauma that any parent would feel, having lost someone in those circumstances. There is no doubt that a greater trauma for a parent could not be imagined.
I shall take a brief look at the statistics. As has been said, this is a very human subject—not one for pie charts or statistics—but I think we ought to look at them, if only to consider how far we have to go, and how much more space we need to cover to get close to a situation where stillbirths, and births in labour and shortly afterwards, are reduced to the lowest possible  level. One in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage; 200,000 mothers and their families are affected every year; 3,245 stillbirths were recorded in 2014 by MBRRACE-UK. In 46% of stillbirths, the causes are unknown. That is a horrifyingly high statistic, and it is vital that we continue—I am grateful for the Government’s efforts in this respect—to research, so that we can find out the causes of as many conditions as possible. It surely is not something we can be happy about, or be content to tolerate, that the rate of stillbirth in this country is higher than in so many European countries, including Germany, Sweden, Poland and Estonia.
It is a sad fact that in so many cases, the causes of death are potentially avoidable. Many who have spoken today have far greater experience and knowledge than I have, and I do not pretend to tell the House about those points, but it seems to me that the Government should consider mounting an education campaign so that mothers can, where possible, avoid any risks—the risks, for example, of smoking in pregnancy are well known, and they need to be made clear to everybody—and recognise the signs of an impending problem.

Antoinette Sandbach: The MAMA Academy creates some fantastic wallets. I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to his local hospital trust and urges them to provide those wallets to their mothers-to-be. I know that the Countess of Chester is doing that for mums served by that trust. Each wallet has a lot of information on the front, which helps parents know when they should start worrying, because it alerts them to the signs that mean they should go to hospital and get scanned.

Robert Courts: I am very grateful for that helpful intervention. I will almost certainly do that. [Interruption.] No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will assist. That will be most welcome to mothers—and indeed fathers, who of course worry equally about such risk factors. That will be a great deal of help.
I wonder whether the Government would also consider the subject of scans. I am conscious that in this country we do not scan past 20 weeks, and that in Finland, which has one of the lowest rates of stillbirth in the world, there are much more frequent scans, continuing into the third trimester. Indeed, in that country, they also have regular checks on very young children. I appreciate that there are many important claims on resources, but ask the Government to continue to look at that because the causal link between Finland’s success and regular checks should be considered.
The theme of Baby Loss Awareness Week is support for bereaved parents and today, of all days, is World Mental Health Day. When tragic circumstances occur, all possible support must be available to parents. Nothing will ever make amends for the loss of a child and nothing will ever take them back to the day before that loss occurred. As anyone who has lost someone will realise, however, while the situation is never “better”, the realisation that you are not alone can and does help. We ought to bring that support to as many people as possible. I welcome the Government’s bereavement care pathway and the assistance provided for it by the all-party group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is in his place, is introducing a private Member’s Bill. One would like to think that employers would be sympathetic in such circumstances:  that is a basic, human and natural reaction. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who gave us a very clear example of when that is not always the case. If ever there were a clear example of why the Bill is necessary, we have heard it today—and of course I support it. Compassion, as well as the time and support to grieve, is vital for parents in such tragic circumstances.
I would like to end my brief comments on a local note. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for mentioning Horton General hospital, and I support and echo everything she says. Her passion is clear to all. Like her, I remain of the view that downgrading Horton’s maternity services is unsafe. I remain of the view that asking mothers in the late stages of labour to travel on the very congested roads between Banbury and Oxford, or from the north of west Oxfordshire in my constituency to Oxford, is unsafe. I fear for the consequences if that situation is sustained. I deplore the way the consultation was handled: looking at maternity services at the hospital in phase one of a sustainability and transformation partnership, when the issue of maternity services across the whole of Oxfordshire, and particularly west Oxfordshire and my constituency, must be considered. It is not helpful to look at such services in isolation.
The people of Chipping Norton have equally valid concerns over the future of their midwifery-led unit. It is clearly critical in such an isolated rural area, where the weather has an effect on traffic on our congested roads, for expectant mothers and families to have access to full, high-quality midwifery and obstetrics care throughout the whole of Banbury and the north of west Oxfordshire. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and others to ensure access throughout west Oxfordshire to the very highest quality maternity services.

Justin Madders: This has been a compelling debate, which has once again shown the House at its best. I welcome the fact that we are discussing these issues again in the Chamber as part of Baby Loss Awareness Week. I hope that these extremely valuable debates will become an annual fixture, because they provide us with a very valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the work of the 40 baby loss charities who work together as the Baby Loss Awareness Week Alliance. They also give us the opportunity to assess what progress has been made in meeting our shared ambitions to improve prevention, treatment and bereavement care.
I recognise the work of the all-party group on baby loss. It is true to say, as a number of Members have today, that it has played a key role in ensuring that this issue is kept at the top of the Government’s agenda, and that some of the taboos that have so often surrounded this subject are broken down. There have been a number of excellent contributions from Members on all sides and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to draw attention to some of them.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned coroners’ inquests and fatal accident inquiries for stillbirths—an issue she has raised on a number of occasions. I pay tribute to her for her persistence in that campaign. She certainly made a  compelling case that such inquiries would inform good practice and, more importantly, bereaved parents may get answers that they have not previously had.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke with great passion and personal experience, and in his capacity as the co-chair of the APPG. He touched on a range of issues and highlighted the importance of mental health. I was rather troubled by what the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said. I certainly recognise her description of a culture of defensiveness in certain trusts. She was absolutely right that most parents want answers, not compensation. We need to do more about the way in which the NHS handles these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) told us about her constituents, Jack and Sarah, who have recently spoken publicly about the tragic circumstances of the death of their daughter, Harriet. They felt that what they were told was not correct and want coroners’ inquests to be available for stillborn children. As my hon. Friend said, there seems to be growing cross-party support for such a move. I assure her that the Opposition Front Bench will do what we can to assist in making that campaign a reality.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who also co-chairs the APPG, was right to pay tribute to the NHS staff who have really taken up the challenge laid down by the APPG of improving the experience for parents. She rightly drew attention to the wider public health factors that we need an awful lot more work on, and raised an important point about the need for CCGs to commission bereavement counselling consistently across the board. It is often a concern that CCGs do not commission services consistently across the country, so more examination and accountability is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) spoke about her constituent’s son, William, whose ashes were scattered without his family’s knowledge. She spoke about this in the debate last year, so I am sorry to hear that there are still many unanswered questions. I hope that she does not have to come back to this debate next year to raise the same issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the terrible circumstances affecting one of his constituents and the need to improve awareness of group B strep. In last year’s debate, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) advised the House that one baby a day develops group B strep. We should be able to do a lot more about that, given that it is a largely preventable infection.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted well the gaps in the law on bereavement leave. I wish him success with his private Member’s Bill. He made the valid point that we are also employers, so it is probably worth us examining the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority terms and conditions following the debate to see whether there is anything more we can do to ensure that we are an exemplar.
We were privileged to hear from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), given her professional experience. She conveyed well how difficult it is for staff in some of these situations. Her reflections on her last 16 years in practice were informative and positive,  and she made some excellent points about areas in which we can do better. I hope the Minister will take those points on board.
As we have heard from many hon. Members’ contributions today and in previous debates, the efforts of people here and among the public have gone a long way towards breaking down taboos. I pay tribute to those who have done so and the efforts of others in the public eye to raise awareness. For example, “Coronation Street” had a storyline involving a stillbirth earlier this year. I am sure that such television programmes have an even greater reach than Parliament TV. What made that storyline so poignant was that Kim Marsh, whose character portrayed the stillbirth onscreen, herself suffered a bereavement eight years before. She said of the broadcast that
“sharing is absolutely imperative to being able to put the pieces of your jigsaw back together”.
That is incredibly sound advice.
Many parents have spoken of the isolation they can feel, and we have heard from hon. Members today about how that has been a taboo subject for a very long time and about the difficulty people can have in discussing the loss of their child for what seems like many years. A constituent of mine, Nicole Bowles, is in that situation. She has set up a campaign, called Our Missing Piece, to make it easier for parents to let other people know that their family is missing a loved one. She has designed a badge for bereaved parents to wear as a way of telling the world that they are dealing with child loss. Her ambition is very simple but could have a very positive impact. She says:
“I hope that by creating this badge it helps to show that: It’s OK to talk to us; It’s okay to ask if we’re alright; It’s okay to say their name.”
I commend her campaign and I hope that this debate has gone some way to conveying the sentiments she expresses about the need to talk about these issues and break down the barriers that have been there for too long.
We know from the recent review of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the UK that of the 782,720 births in 2015, 3,032 were stillbirths and 1,360 were neonatal deaths. This amounts to about 12 stillbirths or neonatal deaths every day. That is a huge number of families each and every week experiencing one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedy of their lives. It is a difficult figure to process, particularly because, as the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said, sometimes these deaths could have been avoided.
It is of course positive that perinatal mortality has decreased in this country, but the level of progress has not been good enough. According to The Lancet, the annual rate of stillbirth reduction in the UK has been slower than that in the vast majority of high-income countries. One of the key reasons for that is the high level of variability in the services offered. This country offers some of the best neonatal care in the world, along with some exemplary psychological and bereavement support, but unfortunately that is not available equally to everyone. Last year, NHS England reported a 25% variation in stillbirth rates across England. That is a startling figure, but it demonstrates that we have the capability to meet and exceed the Government’s target to reduce the number of stillbirths by 20% before 2021  if we ensure that everyone has access to the very best care and treatment. I welcome the progress the Minister referred to earlier towards meeting that target, and I hope that he will be able to update us annually on progress. I also invite him to consider whether it would be appropriate to expand the scope of the Government’s ambitions to focus also on reducing the number of premature births, given that prematurity contributes to a significant number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths each year.
As well as variability, another area where we need to make significant progress is ensuring safe staffing levels at all times on all neonatal units. The 2015 Bliss report “Hanging in the Balance” found that 64% of neonatal units did not have enough nurses to meet the national standards on safe staffing and that 70% of neonatal intensive care units regularly looked after more babies than was considered safe. As we know from exchanges this morning in departmental questions, there are huge challenges in the workforce at the moment, and the Government have set out their strategy to deal with them, so I hope that we will see progress. It is certainly something that we will be monitoring closely.
Finally, I turn to the key theme of this year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week, which the hon. Member for Colchester referred to: bereavement care. This is an area that stretches from the level of support available immediately following a neonatal death to the medium and long-term support available to families. I welcome yesterday’s announcement on the national bereavement care pathway, which will see 11 sites in England trial the use of new materials, guidelines and training for professionals. The trial, leading to a full roll-out in a year’s time, has the potential to tackle long-standing and unacceptable variances in bereavement care and ensure that all bereaved parents are offered equal, high-quality, individualised, safe and sensitive care, which is something everyone in the House wants to see.
I suspect that the challenge of a successful roll-out will be ensuring that sufficient time is set aside for the training that staff will need. I welcome the news from the Minister about the funds and support that will be available for the delivery of that training, but we must recognise that training is a continuing process, and we must keep an eye on progress in the years to come. As I said earlier, another big challenge is ensuring that the workforce are in a position to deliver the pathway. Last year, Sands found that 38% of maternity units did not have a specialist bereavement midwife based there, while Bliss has found that 30% of neonatal units do not have access to any psychological support.
There is also a need for capital investment. We have heard from a number of Members today about the importance of bereavement suites, and we know that one in three trusts and health boards does not have a dedicated bereavement room in each maternity unit. I am aware that the Government have ambitious plans to release significant parts of the NHS estate, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that there will be consideration of the shortfall in the number of bereavement suites before any disposals proceed.
There is much more to be done, but I think the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) summed up the position well when she said that, for the first time, there was some hope. Let us continue to move forward in that spirit.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised during this excellent debate. It is important to recognise and welcome the cross-party support from Members, including the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We heard 14 contributions from other Members, including five, by my count, who have personally suffered—or their families have suffered—the loss or miscarriage of a baby, as well as two from experienced doctors: my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who brought their particular expertise to the debate. I am grateful for the support from Members on both sides of the House for the Government’s action plan—for what we have done in the 12 months since our last debate on this subject, and for what we are planning to do.
A number of issues have been raised today. I will not go into detail about Members’ constituency concerns, although I will say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that when, as a Shropshire Member, I was dealing with one of my constituents who suffered an inability to find out what had happened to the ashes of the baby they had lost, which was similar to what occurred in Hull, my experience was of talking to the local authority and persuading it that this was the right thing to do. I should be happy to help the hon. Lady, if she needs help from the Department, to emphasise again to her local authority that it is indeed the right thing to do.
Members have challenged me on a couple of issues, particularly that of coroners’ reports. We are introducing a perinatal mortality review tool to allow investigations to be undertaken, with information collated in a manner that can then inform and be learned from. We will watch with interest what happens in Scotland, but at this point I think we need to get the tool working and see how it goes. In my opening speech, I mentioned the health service safety investigations branch on which we  are consulting. We envisage it as having a role in looking at some of the more extreme cases, but only if it decides to do so.
A number of colleagues talked about the use of private Members’ Bills to try to drive this agenda forward. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that the Government will support his Bill on bereavement leave, which was also mentioned in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). I cannot promise that we will support all the other measures that the all-party parliamentary group comes up with, but we will certainly look at them with interest.
Following last night’s launch of the national bereavement care pathway, I am particularly pleased, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, that that has received so much support from the APPG, the charities and the healthcare professionals who work in this field. Finally, let me say a big thank you to all the midwives, doctors and healthcare support workers who do such a fantastic job, delivering more than 700,000 babies successfully and also helping parents who, sadly, do not experience the happiness of a healthy baby.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness week.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY, EASTER, MAY DAY AND WHITSUN)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 8 February 2018, do adjourn until Tuesday 20 February 2018; at its rising on Thursday 29 March 2018, do adjourn until Monday 16 April 2018; at its rising on Thursday 3 May 2018 do adjourn until Tuesday 8 May 2018; and at its rising on Thursday 24 May 2018, do adjourn until Monday 4 June 2018.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Devolution: Yorkshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

John Grogan: It is a particular pleasure to open this debate on Yorkshire devolution with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have a distinguished record as a former Minister for Yorkshire, and at a time when Yorkshire needed a strong Minister, bringing together the world of politics, business and local authorities. I suggest that we are at a similar moment in our history. We need a strong elected voice to champion the whole of Yorkshire as our economy and our businesses face the challenges of Brexit.
All Yorkshiremen and women pride themselves on calling a spade a spade, and sometimes in our political lives we can fall victims to that. I retired from this House in 2010 and never expected to return. I quickly realised the trueness of the statement that there is nothing more ex than an ex-MP.

Jake Berry: No!

John Grogan: I am afraid so, Minister, as one day you might find out.
I returned to my former constituency to knock on doors in Heslington in support of a former council colleague. I wondered whether the resident at the first door I knocked on might recognise me. He opened the door, gave me one look and said, “The return of the living dead.” I want to be as frank as that former constituent in my comments to the House this evening, but I also want to suggest a way forward and possible compromises and conciliation. I will also speak about the Sheffield city region deal, much diminished though it now is.
Let me start by examining a proposal that has been signed by 17 Labour and Conservative councils—when last I checked, not one had withdrawn its name. They are proposing a single mayor and a single combined authority for the areas they represent, which is perfectly in line with the current law, as the Minister has agreed in a parliamentary answer. I want to consider not what might happen in future Parliaments, but what we can achieve in this Parliament, because, representing God’s own county, we all have a responsibility to do that.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we have a responsibility to consider all the options? He mentioned 17 local authority leaders. The nine across north Yorkshire, who did sign up to the One Yorkshire deal in principle, are keen to explore the option of Greater Yorkshire, which is a deal on the table that we could progress today. Does he not think that we should be exploring that option?

John Grogan: Interestingly, none of those nine local authorities has yet withdrawn its name from the 17 that signed up to explore the Yorkshire deal. Some have admitted to me that they have benefited from re-education at last week’s Conservative party conference and now better understand the Government’s position, but Councillor Carl Les, who is a very good friend of mine  from my days in north Yorkshire, said today that he still favours the widest possible deal. He doubted whether he could persuade the Minister, but I am more confident that we can do so.
It is interesting to look at the geography, because it includes the north of the Humber but not the south, and I recognise that there would need to be strong links between the north and the south however this plays out. The proposed combined authority would control things such as transport. On the basis of deals elsewhere, it might have £150 million to spend that is currently spent by Whitehall. It would look after skills, and there are some imaginative proposals, including that the regional schools commissioner should report to the mayor because we need to improve the performance of Yorkshire’s academies. The mayor would also oversee the team that promotes international trade in Yorkshire.
There are lots of exciting ideas, but it is Yorkshire’s identity that matters to me. Whether at Keighley Cougars, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday or Leeds United, people do not chant, “Sheffield city region!” or “South Yorkshire!”; they chant, “Yorkshire!” [Interruption.] Anytime that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) wants to intervene, I will obviously take that intervention.

Clive Betts: I am just storing it up.

John Grogan: I thought so.
One newspaper that comes out of this whole saga with credit is The Yorkshire Post, and I want to read just two sentences from its editorial this morning:
“This debate is a litmus test which will define the future relationship between Ministers and Yorkshire. While the city-region model is working elsewhere, a Yorkshire-wide devolution deal has the potential to be truly transformative and Ministers will not be thanked if they’re unable to recognise the once-in-a-generation opportunity that exists at long last.”

Rachael Maskell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for the Greater Yorkshire deal. Devolution is all about local people making choices about their future and controlling their destiny. Seventeen authorities have come together to say that they want this deal, so the Minister should meet them and the MPs involved to get the deal under way. We cannot lag behind.

John Grogan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. All that the 17 councils are asking for is talks, which the Minister has not yet agreed to. This House quite rightly prides itself on the fact that we have had devolution through consent from both parties in more difficult places than Yorkshire, such as Northern Ireland, and we are now telling the Spanish Government that they must have talks with Catalonia. If they can do that, why cannot the Government have talks with 17 Yorkshire council leaders?

Tracy Brabin: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because we started with a proposal for a West Yorkshire mayor and then for a lesser Yorkshire mayor, and we now have one for a Greater Yorkshire mayor. This should be less about the political colour of the mayor and more about councillors and other politicians working together to  make swift decisions so that the people of Yorkshire, and particularly Batley and Spen, can make the most of this opportunity to regenerate our glorious, wonderful Yorkshire.

John Grogan: I could not have put it better. This is not just about the councils, because business also backs the proposal. I saw Jonathan Oxley, the regional chairman of the Institute of Directors, on television this morning, and Bill Adams of the TUC is among the opinion formers in Yorkshire who are very much behind the proposal.
I share many things with the Minister, one of which is that neither of us wakes up on election morning knowing that we will win—we fight marginal seats. Some of my hon. Friends have argued that the Labour party should not propose something that we would not definitely win. Equally, I am sure that some civil servants in Westminster have that traditional metropolitan fear of too strong a body in Yorkshire, which perhaps dates back in folk memory to when York was the capital of Viking England. We need a strong political voice in Yorkshire to argue for things such as better transport. Transport spending in Yorkshire is only £1 per head compared with £10 per head in London. We in Yorkshire are also 20% more likely to die young than those in the south-east, so we need a strong political voice to change things in our society.

Julian Sturdy: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument. To bring him back to the sporting analogy, we had the grand final at the weekend—sadly, Keighley Cougars were not there, but Leeds and Castleford were—and it was played in Manchester. Is that not the point? While Manchester carries on with devolution and is moving forward, Yorkshire is not. Forget the politics, we have to move forward with devolution now.

John Grogan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would say that Keighley Cougars will rise again. We are missing out in Yorkshire. Take the Commonwealth games. They are possibly going to Birmingham; Yorkshire was not even in the frame, and that is because we do not have a strong, powerful voice arguing that things such as the Commonwealth games should come to us. I would want a competitive election, which a devolution deal based on the whole of Yorkshire would bring.

Clive Betts: rose—

John Grogan: I was about to move on to to the Sheffield city region deal, so this is the moment for me to give way.

Clive Betts: I will let my hon. Friend expand on that point, then I will come in.

John Grogan: I thought my hon. Friend was rising to intervene.

Clive Betts: I will in a second.

John Grogan: Perhaps to encourage my hon. Friend to do so, let me say that I am afraid that the Sheffield city region deal is much diminished. Obviously, Barnsley and Doncaster signed up, and there was the hope that  various authorities in Derbyshire would be involved. Sadly, that has now changed. Although the deal is about the same in terms of money—slightly more than Manchester, but quite a bit less than the west of England—if we look at the powers we can do better in the whole of Yorkshire. There is no housing investment fund in the Sheffield city region deal, no control of railway stations and no community infrastructure levy. All those things are held by the Mayor of Manchester, so why do we have to have second best in Yorkshire? We can negotiate better than that across the whole of Yorkshire.

Clive Betts: Can I come in on that point?

John Grogan: I think that this would be an appropriate point for that.

Clive Betts: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. He accuses the Government of not talking, but they have talked at great length to the leaders of councils and to councils in the Sheffield city region. When the deal was signed up to by the four council leaders in the South Yorkshire districts in 2014, that was before Chesterfield and Bassetlaw came in. They came in at a later stage and if they had not, the deal would have been agreed and an election would have been held this year for an elected mayor. That will now happen next year. All those four leaders signed up to the election and the statutory instrument is being put through. I ask my hon. Friend to do a deal for his constituency and the rest of Yorkshire, and not to let our deal be held up on that basis.

John Grogan: I am slightly disappointed, as I was hoping that my hon. Friend would announce his candidature for Sheffield city mayor, but I will give way if he decides to make such an announcement tonight. The plain fact of the matter for my hon. Friend and for the Government is whether they are seriously going to impose an expensive mayoral election on the people of South Yorkshire when two of the four authorities are opposed to it. Are they seriously going to do that for a mayor who will have no powers and no money?
I am all in favour of all-party talks and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has been working closely with the Government on this, but I would ask him, the Government and John Mothersole, who is the chief executive of South Yorkshire and a distinguished public servant, but perhaps a little too associated with one deal, whether we could try another plan—the best chief executives always have a plan A, a plan B, a plan C and a plan D—which I will suggest in a spirit of compromise. Members of all parties at a local and national level have been ringing me up over the past few days. Some have suggested a staged approach if there was a commitment to all-Yorkshire devolution. My hon. Friend has said himself that he would not rule that out in the future. Our good colleague, and former MP, Richard Caborn, has said the same. He would not rule that out. Could we not do it now? We could bring it in very rapidly. Perhaps we could have that staged approach with a mayoral election in South Yorkshire followed by an all-Yorkshire election a couple of years later. Those are possibilities.
I have one more suggestion to make to the Minister in a moment, but I just want to look briefly at one other factor. I said yesterday that an idea is serious once people start betting on it, and I noted today that a book  has been opened on the first Yorkshire mayor. I was rather surprised that I was at 4-1. I am not sure whether anybody, even a member of my family, has put a bet on today, but I am ruling myself out. Various other hon. Members are on the list, but I will not embarrass them. I will say only that Jessica Ennis-Hill is at 33-1 and it surprises me that she is the first woman on that list, because there are many, many strong candidates. I can think of four women council leaders in Yorkshire off the top of my head, and it would be something if Yorkshire were to have the first female major metropolitan mayor.

Kevin Hollinrake: When the Select Committee took evidence from Lord Kerslake about devolution, he made it clear that a stepping stone approach may well work in terms of different devolution deals. Why would the hon. Gentleman not now commit to moving ahead with Greater Yorkshire? What is it about Doncaster and Barnsley that is so attractive to Keighley that he needs those in a deal in order to move ahead with it? Why is that?

John Grogan: In direct response to that, let me conclude with a suggestion to the Minister. It is possible that he will not initiate talks tonight. I hope he will—I have great hope and faith—but he may just not do so. This Minister from a Lancashire constituency—I put it delicately —may tell us a lot about his three happy years as a student in Sheffield, and we are looking forward to hearing about that, but it is just possible that to solve this problem we need a higher authority than the Minister—the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or even the Prime Minister’s hero, Geoffrey Boycott. I am secretary of the all-party group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire and I have written to the Archbishop of York asking him to consider calling a meeting of all those involved in the devolution process to try to make some progress, which the people of Yorkshire sorely need. The Archbishop of York’s office has told me that he is supportive of the process of Yorkshire devolution, and he will closely examine the proposals of the 17 councils involved and will be in contact with the bishops of Leeds and Sheffield about the most appropriate course of action to take.
So I leave the Minister with two questions. Are the Government against the principle of One Yorkshire devolution or, as various hon. Members have suggested, would they be prepared to accept it as the final destination on an agreed staged process over the next two or three years? Secondly, if it is forthcoming, would the Minister accept an invitation from the Archbishop of York, even if he will not initiate talks himself, to take part in talks on Yorkshire devolution and how the people of Yorkshire can get what many of the great cities of England already have?

Alex Sobel: It is great to have a Yorkshire woman MP in the Chair for this debate. Devolved decision making over the past 20 years has been like a game of snakes and ladders; we have been up ladders and down snakes. We have had Yorkshire Forward and the Yorkshire Assembly, as part of the regional settlement; it is worth noting that only two of the Government regions in England which are  still in use for a number of functions are not points on a compass and reflect a geographic area. The first is London, which has had its devolution settlement with the Mayor and Assembly since 1999, and the second is Yorkshire. After the regional development agencies were abolished, Government policy moved on to the local enterprise partnerships and combined authorities, and now Government policy is for metro mayors and city regions.
In Yorkshire these structures are still opaque and confusing for most people. People in many of our towns and cities would not recognise themselves as being part of a city region, but they understand the idea of Yorkshire. Yorkshire people are proud of being part of Yorkshire, and it is time that our identity and regional uniqueness were acknowledged, and not dismissed by this Government. If our region could speak with a single voice, it would be a player on the world stage, rather than on the national stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) said, both industry and the unions have backed the One Yorkshire model. They want to develop region-wide hubs around IT, tourism, food and advanced manufacturing, including low-carbon and renewable energy, helping to create 21st-century jobs and 21st-century solutions which can be the envy of the world and start to rebalance our economy away from London. That is the most important goal for our region and others.
Yorkshire’s cultural achievements are legion: the world’s first ever film was filmed in 1888 in Roundhay; the first ever football club, Sheffield FC, was founded in 1874; and, as hon. Members might recall, in the London 2012 Olympics if Yorkshire had been a country it would have finished 12th in the medals table. Obviously, that is not forgetting this weekend’s eighth super league grand final win by Leeds Rhinos from my constituency. Yorkshire pudding is an integral part of our national dish, the Sunday roast.
Our whole character is based on our regional cultural establishment. This year, we have had the UK city of culture in Hull, which has been a platform not just for Hull, great as it was, but for the whole of Yorkshire. Leeds is bidding to be the European capital of culture in 2023. How good would it be to be part of a One Yorkshire authority where we could all amplify that achievement globally? Furthermore, Yorkshire’s interconnectivity and transport issues need a single voice.

Jake Berry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) on securing such an important debate.
In May this year, just five months ago, six metro mayors were elected to the combined authorities in England. Those six mayors—three in the northern powerhouse—have the power to create jobs, improve skills, drive forward their local economy and improve transport. Already they are creating a single point of accountability for residents, and have become powerful advocates for their area. Let us consider two of them. Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley has created the first mayoral development corporation outside London and is already attracting not just national but international businesses to the Tees Valley so that he can turn around SSI—Sahaviriya Steel Industries—steelworks. One mayor, one point of accountability driving forward his economy.
Andy Burnham, who will be familiar to those on the Labour Benches, is the metro mayor for the great city of Manchester. In one of the most striking acts of leadership that I have seen, he stood strong, representing his city and our whole nation, against a terrorist outrage that took place in that city just days after he was elected. One city, one mayor standing together against terrorism.
As with all devolution settlements across the United Kingdom, the process of passing powers from central Government to our regions is a one-way street. Metro mayors are already asking the Government what happens once they have fully implemented their devolution deal. What is the next natural step to return power, money and influence to their region?
These early adopters, these mayors, are viewed with envy by the residents and the business communities around them. When people turn on their telly and see Ben Houchen, Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham standing there with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they did this summer, they naturally ask—as I have been asked in Yorkshire—why is my area being left behind?
The metro mayors, created by this Government, form a partnership of equals with Government. They sit at the top table to talk about housing, economic development and, crucially, Brexit. That is why this Government believe that the South Yorkshire devolution deal should proceed. There can be no devolution two without a devolution one going on in the first place.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked why Manchester has so many powers. Manchester and its mayor have currently negotiated four deals with the Government. The Sheffield city region deal is the start of devolution, not the end of it. As a Conservative Government, we are not making a narrow political point. We will not gain any advantage from having a South Yorkshire mayor. I guess that the people of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield deserve the devolution that they have been promised.
Those areas came together in 2015 and asked this Government for the deal. We believed then—and still believe now—that passing power and money from Whitehall to those town halls can transform the lives of people in South Yorkshire. Then Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield reaffirmed their commitment to the deal—not once, not twice but on three separate occasions. At their request, not the Government’s request, we legislated on two occasions to put ourselves in the position that we are in today. It is the law of the land, debated in this House, passed by this House, and voted on by this House that the mayoral election in the Sheffield city region will take place on 3 May 2018. The Sheffield city region deal is by all measures a good deal. It will bring £30 million a year of new Government money into one of the most deprived regions of the UK. It is one of the most generous devolution deals the Government have agreed. It equates to £22 per person per year in the Sheffield city region, compared with just £11 in Manchester.
On 3 May 2018, when the new South Yorkshire mayor is elected, the people of South Yorkshire—not the politicians—will, just like the people of the Tees Valley, Manchester and Liverpool, have a strong local voice to represent them at the top table with the Government.
While it is unfortunate that two of the local authorities that signed up to that deal in its original form have not consented to proceed to consult on the powers of the mayor,  I can confirm that, as far as the Conservative party is concerned, I spoke last night to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who is the Conservative party chairman, and we are proceeding to select our candidate for this important election.
The reason I make that point is that I say this to the new mayor of South Yorkshire, whoever he or she may be: we understand the challenges South Yorkshire faces, we believe that an elected mayor can give South Yorkshire the leadership it clearly needs, and we will work with them, whoever they may be, to ensure that the nearly £1 billion of Government money that has been promised to South Yorkshire is delivered to the people of South Yorkshire.
It took my breath away when the leader of Sheffield City Council, Julie Dore, told me this summer that she never thought she would live to see the day in South Yorkshire when a Labour council—in fact, two Labour councils—egged on by local MPs, would reject £1 billion from a Tory Government because of factionalism and infighting in the Labour party in South Yorkshire.

Dan Jarvis: I say to the Minister in good faith that he needs to be very careful about the tone of his comments. We have had a good-natured and constructive debate tonight about a very important subject, but the leaders of Barnsley and Doncaster have done what they have done because they genuinely believe it is in the best interests of the areas they represent.

Jake Berry: Well, I look forward in future debates to never hearing a whimper from the Labour Benches about supposed Government cuts. I have lived in South Yorkshire, and I know how deprived some of these areas are. People in Barnsley, Doncaster, Sheffield and Rotherham deserve the £1 billion the Government have brought forward for them.

Dan Jarvis: rose—

Jake Berry: I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. All I can say is that the people who are trying to undermine this deal know exactly who they are, and it is shame on them, shame on them, shame on them.

Dan Jarvis: rose—

Jake Berry: I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Let me turn to devolution in the rest of Yorkshire. We welcome the discussions that have taken place over the summer, with talks having restarted after a significant period of stalemate. It is absolutely clear that there is no agreement around what has been referred to as the One Yorkshire deal. A report in Sheffield’s The Star yesterday confirmed that 11 of the 20 councils in Yorkshire support this proposal. York, Hambleton, Harrogate, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Ryedale and Wakefield have said that they will not proceed with it. Although some elements of the media may choose to ignore that inconvenient truth, it is simply not the case that the coalition of the willing has had or does have wide support for its proposal.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his letter dated 15 September, he is happy to meet leaders to discuss a Greater Yorkshire deal, which could be an exciting and groundbreaking devolution deal, passing real power and real influence from the people in London back to the people of Greater Yorkshire. He has also confirmed that a Greater Yorkshire deal should not and cannot include any of the South Yorkshire boroughs. That is because to do so would undermine fundamentally the position of good faith that underpins both the Sheffield city region deal and all devolution deals that the Government seek to negotiate.

Nicholas Dakin: If there were a desire from the northern Lincolnshire area to be involved in that process, would that be looked at by Ministers?

Jake Berry: Whoever is involved in the Greater Yorkshire deal, it is for Greater Yorkshire leaders to decide, perhaps with Lincolnshire, whether that should proceed.
In conclusion, if Yorkshire leaders come to Government with a widely supported, ground-up Greater Yorkshire deal involving—

Dan Jarvis: Will the Minister give way?

Jake Berry: I am sorry, I cannot because I do not have time.
If Yorkshire leaders come to Government with a widely supported, ground-up Greater Yorkshire deal involving a single mayoral combined authority that does not in any way undermine the Sheffield city region deal, we will welcome that. We stand ready. We will meet with people, including John Sentamu, because we believe that that deal, together with the South Yorkshire deal, has the potential to drive forward devolution in Yorkshire.
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).